An Analysis of Claimed Sequential Narrative Parallels Between The Jewish War and the Synoptic Gospels

OVERVIEW

This article asks a simple but controversial question: do the Synoptic Gospels follow the same sequence of events as the account of The Jewish War?

The focus here is not on vague similarities, shared themes, or biblical imagery that everyone agrees the Gospel writers used. Instead, it looks at whether the order in which events unfold in the Gospels repeatedly mirrors the order in which events unfold in The Jewish War, from Galilee through Jerusalem and its destruction.

No single example proves anything on its own. The argument rests on the pattern that emerges when many such parallels appear in the same sequence. The aim is to see whether the structure of the Gospel story makes better sense when read alongside the War narrative.

HOW TO READ THIS ARTICLE

This is a long piece, and it is evidence-heavy. Here’s how it’s laid out:

• First, it explains why the order of events matters more than isolated similarities.

• Next, it walks through a series of proposed parallels between War and the Gospels, following the story as it moves from Galilee to Jerusalem.

• It then asks whether coincidence, shared scripture, or general storytelling habits can really explain the pattern.

• Finally, it considers what kind of historical setting would make this sort of borrowing possible.

You don’t have to agree with every example to follow the argument. The question is whether the overall pattern can reasonably be dismissed.

WHAT COUNTS AS A "SEQUENTIAL PARALLEL" HERE

To avoid confusion, this article uses the idea of a "sequential parallel" in a very narrow way.

• Shared themes are common in ancient writing; what matters here is whether the same kinds of events recur in the same order across multiple episodes, making coincidence increasingly unlikely.

• Biblical imagery is part of the picture, but on its own it doesn’t explain why the storyline itself lines up so closely.

• The direction of comparison runs from the War narrative to the Gospels, not the other way around.

WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED HERE

The focus here is on how the Gospel narratives were constructed, and on the level of literacy, education, and access to texts that would have been needed to make that construction possible.

The discussion does not attempt to identify named authors. Instead, it considers the most plausible social and literary environment in which such narratives could have been produced, particularly one in which the account of The Jewish War was available and could be used as a narrative framework. For that reason, the article does not rule out members of the ruling elite as possible authors, even if it does not attempt to name them individually.

What is being examined is not personal intention, but whether the structure of the Gospel stories points to composition within elite literary circles rather than to coincidence or uncontrolled oral development.

ABSTRACT

This article takes a simple (and awkward) question seriously: what happens if we read the The Jewish War [1] alongside the Synoptic gospels [2] and pay attention to the order in which events unfold? Lots of ancient writing shares themes and recycled images — that’s normal. What’s harder to shrug off is when the story beats start lining up in the same sequence again and again, from Galilee through to Jerusalem and its destruction. No single parallel proves anything. The point is the pattern: does it keep repeating in a way that makes coincidence feel less and less likely? And if it does, what’s the simplest explanation — shared scripture, storytelling habits, sheer chance, or a Gospel narrative built with The Jewish War story somewhere in the background?

Keywords: The Jewish War; Synoptic Gospels; ancient storytelling; narrative sequence; Roman period; Jerusalem; literary culture

I INTRODUCTION

Ancient historians are used to reading their sources with a raised eyebrow. No ancient author tells the whole story without selection, emphasis, or agenda, and history itself is always a work in progress rather than a settled list of facts. With that in mind, this article looks again at a controversial claim first put forward in 2005:[3] that the Synoptic gospels and The Jewish War may share a series of narrative sequences too consistent to ignore.

This analysis confines itself strictly to two bodies of text: The Jewish War of Josephus and the Synoptic gospels. All parallels discussed below are drawn directly from these works, without supplementation from other sources. The purpose is to show the extent to which the gospels and Josephus share sequential, typological, and thematic structures. Where the Old Testament clearly provides imagery echoed in the gospels, this is acknowledged. Yet such dependence does not exclude Josephus as a parallel source, for Josephus himself repeatedly interprets events of the Jewish War through scripture. After 70 CE, sacred Jewish texts were in Roman possession and physically in Rome, making it highly plausible that Flavian writers and their circles employed biblical imagery alongside historical narrative. Therefore Old Testament intertextuality and Josephus typology can function together, rather than in opposition. The argument advanced here does not rest on isolated coincidences, but on the cumulative sequence of correspondences. Each parallel gains force from its place in a broader pattern that unfolds consistently from Galilee through Jerusalem. While the analysis does not assume explicit documentation of Flavian sponsorship — no such records would exist if the project were intended as subtle ideological literature — it does proceed on the basis of internal textual evidence, thematic coherence, and contextual plausibility, the same standards commonly applied by historians and those involved in the study of early Christian sources.

To begin demonstrating the claim is accurate, I will first analyse a parallel that contains a word oddity used by the man known to us as Flavius Josephus that appears to have been given little attention. The oddity appears in a particular narrative in War 5.268—79 that describes stones being launched at Jerusalem. What is striking is that the narrative wording is paralleled in Lk. 19.39—41 describing ‘stones crying out’ and a ‘hiding from eyes’. Not only does this parallel appear to have been overlooked by most scholars, but it becomes more striking when The Jewish War is read along with the New Testament and it is recognised that the events in both works occur at the same point in the narratives.

Here are the narratives compared, with the parallel concepts italicised:

War 5.268—79

‘The rocks which they hurled weighed a talent and had a range of two furlongs or more; and their impact not only to those who first met it but even to those considerably in rear was irresistible. The Jews, however, at the first were on their guard against the stone, for, being white, its approach was intimated not only to the ear by the whiz [‘crying out’], but also to the eye by its brilliance [brightness/light]. Watchmen were accordingly posted by them on the towers, who gave warning whenever the engine was fired and the stone in transit, by shouting in their native tongue, “Sonny's coming”; whereupon those in the line of fire promptly made way and lay down, owing to which precautions the stone passed harmlessly through and fell in their rear. To frustrate this it occurred to the Romans to blacken it [to hide it from their eyes]; when, as it was no longer equally discernible beforehand, they hit their mark and destroyed many with a single shot.’

Lk. 19.39—41

‘I say to you, that if these should be silent the stones will cry out. And as he drew near, seeing the city he wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, even at least in day thy this, the things for peace thy; but now they are hid from thine eyes; for shall come days upon thee that shall cast about thine enemies a rampart thee, and shall close around thee and keep in thee on every side, and shall level with the ground thee and thy children in thee, and shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone, because thou knewest not the season of visitation thy.’

II THE SON IS COMING

Both narratives concern the ‘entrances’ into Jerusalem. ‘Luke’ describes the ‘foreseeing’ of Jerusalem’s destruction and archaeological evidence shows that the Romans did encircle Jerusalem with a wall (War 5.493—501).[4] The Jewish War describes the actions of the Roman army as they begin their aim of gaining entrance to Jerusalem. White stones weighing a talent were launched by the Roman army and the Jewish watchmen on the towers could see and hear the stones ‘crying out’ as they whizzed by. Apparently the watchmen cried out to fellow Jews warning them when a stone was coming. In response, the Romans blackened the stones, hiding them from sight. But Josephus wrote that the Jews cried out ‘the Son comes’, or ‘the Son is coming’ ὁ υἱός ἔρχεται, as is seen in the Greek and Latin manuscripts and as it reads in the Loeb Classical Library version and the Teubner series, not that the stone is coming (War, 5.268—79).[5]

The evidence strongly suggests that Josephus wrote ‘the Son’ and not ‘the stone’ in this passage because the Greek word πετρα (petra) for stone is written before and after the above statement and past translators not only capitalised the statement, but have also made attempts to make sense of it. Indeed, the Loeb version includes the note, ‘Probably, as Reland suggests, ha-eben (“the stone”) was corrupted to habben (“the son”).’ Recent commentaries on this have been made by Randall Buth and Chad Pierce.[6] Their hypothesis is similar to Reland’s above, noting the wordplay between ‘stone’ and ‘son’ in Hebrew and the fact the Aramiac word for ‘son’ cannot be confused for the Aramiac words for ‘stone’. They argue that the intention of the watchmen was to shout ‘a stone is coming’, but it would have sounded more like ‘the son is coming’. Buth and Pierce say that these words were spoken in a life and death situation, which, given the context of the narrative, is correct. We cannot be certain of which language War may originally have been written in, but if one were to agree with the ‘stone’/‘son’ wordplay argument, Hebrew seems logical (War 1.1—4). This would lead to the word ‘son’ also being written in the Greek version which Buth and Pierce, among others, argue was a complete re-working and not merely a translation.[7] It is difficult to consider the ‘son’ word a scribal error, because surely a scribe would notice the ‘son’ word error and correct it to match the context.

It is important to note that the brief commentaries on this oddity have focussed on what the Jewish watchmen may have said, instead of focussing on what appears intentionally written and preserved in the MSS. I argue that the man we know as Josephus most likely employed this wordplay deliberately. He wanted to support his narrative of Vespasian and Titus fulfilling his reinterpretation of Jewish messianic prophecies with Daniel in mind and his claim that his fortune came from the care of God (Life 424—30). We read War was written with the blessing of Vespasian and Titus and presented to them and it is logical to conclude that had they not approved of anything it would not have been published (Life 357—67).[8] Then, later, we see the parallel narrative in ‘Luke’, further indicating a closer relationship between Josephus and the New Testament authors in Rome. I consider this to be the case for two reasons.

The first reason is that it is logical to assume Josephus would have known the watchmen shouted ‘stone’ rather than ‘son’ based on the context of what he was writing, so the most plausible conclusion, as just mentioned, is that his choice of words was deliberate. The second reason, and I consider this reason to perhaps be more important, when War is read along with the New Testament, Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem as described in Lk 19:39—41 occurs at the same point of events as those described in War. The narrative in Luke describes Jesus approaching the walls of the city and saying, ‘I say to you, that if these should be silent the stones will cry out ... but now they are hid from thine eyes.’; furthermore, Jesus refers to himself as a ‘stone’ in Mt. 21.42.

Both narratives describe stones crying out, in War the stones are seen by their ‘brilliance’[9] or ‘visible brightness’,[10] that is, in this context, their brightness of ‘light’ from being white and Mt. 5.14—16 and Jn. 8.12 has Jesus describe himself as, ‘the light of the world.’ We also see a hiding from eyes described within the context of stones crying out, Jerusalem is encircled and destroyed and the passage in War has been noted in the past as very peculiar. The ‘son of man’ is a title for the coming Messiah applied to Jesus by the Gospel authors likely interpreted from Dan. 7:13—14.[11]

Of course, the narrative in War is far more detailed, but the parallel placement, concept and wording is clear when the passages are read together. At this point I feel the words of Adriaan Reland (1676—1718) and William Whiston (1667—1752) from Whiston’s translation are worth citing, ‘many will here look for a mystery, as though the meaning were that the Son of God came now to take vengeance on the sins of the Jewish nation.’ Based on the narrative of the New Testament, Whiston comments, ‘which is indeed the truth of the fact, but hardly what the Jews could now mean; unless possibly by way of derision of Christ’s threatening so often made, that he would come at the head of the Roman army for their destruction. But even this interpretation has but a very small degree of probability.’

The available evidence does not support any views that the Jewish people would have called out or thought the above. I argue Josephus knew about the ‘son of man’ concept and used it to subtly support the War narrative.

III FURTHER SEQUENTIAL PARALLELS

I will now analyse further claimed sequential parallels between The Jewish War and the Synoptics and will provide further points of clarity where I feel it is needed. The parallels in sequence are mostly present in Luke, but I have provided in brackets the places where the parallel narratives are presented in the other gospels. The parallel events in each narrative begin in the Galilee. Although Vespasian’s original base was located at Ptolemais, where his son Titus would meet him (War 3.60—66), the first direct military engagements for Vespasian and Titus began when Vespasian advanced into Galilee (War 3.111—117).

1.      ‘Saviour Casting Out a Demon/s’

The narratives in War and the gospels describe the whole city of Tiberias being influenced or ‘infected’ by the ‘wickedness’ or ‘madness’ of a few. The mad few are then ‘casted out’ and a saviour (σωτηρα) is declared.

War 3.448—462

‘...for he had heard that the people in general desired peace, but were overruled and being driven to hostilities by some seditious individuals...But before any parley had taken place, the principal promoters of the rising dashed out in arms to meet him, headed by a certain Jesus, son of Saphat, the ringleader of this band of brigands...Dreading the consequences of this incident, the elders and the more respected of the citizens fled to the Roman camp and, after obtaining the king’s support, threw themselves as suppliants at Vespasian’s feet, entreating him not to disregard them nor to impute to the whole city the madness of a few; let him spare a people who had always shown themselves friendly to the Romans and punish the authors of the revolt, under whose power they themselves had been kept to this day, long as they had been anxious to sue for terms...The delegates thus secured terms on behalf of their fellow-citizens, whereupon Jesus and his party, thinking themselves no longer safe at Tiberias, fled to Tarichaeae. The next day Vespasian sent forward Trajan to the ridge of the hill to discover whether the whole multitude were peaceably disposed. Having assured himself that the people were of one mind with the petitioners, he then advanced with his army to the city. The population opened their gates to him and went out to meet him with acclamations, hailing him as saviour and benefactor.’

The parallel narrative in Luke describes Jesus casting out demons that have ‘infected’ the whole town, whereby he is described as the saviour.

Lk. 4.40—41 (Mk. 1.29; Mt. 8.14—17)

‘And at the going down of the sun all as many as had [persons] sick with diseases various brought them to him, and he on one each of them hands having laid healed them; and went out also demons from many, crying out and saying, Thou art the Christ the Son of God.’

1.      Naval Battle/‘Fishers of Men on the Lake of Gennesareth/Tiberias/Sea of Galilee’

This parallel requires somewhat more explanation than others presented here. I will first state that it is well agreed that the NT writers drew on Old Testament passages. It has also been argued that the concept of ‘fishers of men’ was taken from Jeremiah 16.6 and Ezekiel 47.10.[12] The above may be the case. However, War curiously presents a typological conceptual parallel event that, again, occurs in the same sequence of events as is presented in the New Testament. The only obvious differences are the situations of the events and, in some instances, the manner in which the object in the water is captured.

Contained within War are a long set of passages describing Titus essentially telling his men to not be afraid and to follow him, that he will lead them and that God is on his side (War 3.483—490). After a description of the lake of Gennesareth in Galilee, we read a brief description of Vespasian’s forces engaged in what is described as a naval battle and catching Jews on both the beach and in the water after they had failed to catch or kill a great many of them the previous day and night:

War 3.463—70, 490—538

‘The inhabitants, moreover, had ready on the lake a considerable fleet, to serve as a refuge if they were defeated on land, and equipped for naval combat, if required for that purpose... From his position not far from the wall, Titus overheard this commotion. “Now is the time,” he cried; “why tarry, comrades, when God himself delivers the Jews into our hands?...” As he spoke he leapt on his horse, led his troops to the lake, rode through the water and was the first to enter the town, followed by his men. Terror-struck at his audacity, none of the defenders on the ramparts ventured to fight or to resist him; all abandoned their posts and fled, the partisans of Jesus across country, the others down to the lake. The latter ran into the arms of the enemy advancing to meet them; some were killed while boarding their boats, others endeavouring to swim out to their companions, who had previously gained the open water... Those who had taken refuge on the lake, seeing the city taken, sailed off and kept as far as possible out of range of the enemy.’

Following this, a naval battle has taken place and was won by Titus and Vespasian and of particular interest here is p. 725 which describes the Jews as having fallen into the sea:

‘sometimes the rafts closed in and caught their enemies between them, capturing men and vessels. When any who had been sunk rose to the surface, an arrow quickly reached or a raft overtook them; if in their despair they sought to board the enemy’s fleet, the Romans cut off their heads or their hands.’

We read that the Roman rafts surrounded the Jews’ vessels, ‘Thus perished these wretches on all sides in countless numbers and countless manners, until the survivors were routed and forced to the shore, their vessels surrounded by the enemy. As they streamed forth from them many were speared in the water; many sprang on land, where they were slain by the Romans.’[13]

When comparing the above narrative with that which is later presented in the gospels, the beginning stages of the public ministry and the passages describing ‘fishers of men’ parallel the above narrative in War. Of course the context in the War passage is that of conflict and the context message that later appears in the gospel’s passages appears to be theological.

In Luke, the fishermen enclose the fish and catch so many their ships begin to sink. We read that Jesus says to Simon fear not and instructs boats with their catch to be brought to land (the beach). The descriptions of this event end with the men following Jesus. In these narratives Jesus sees two ships standing by the lake which belonged to two fishermen. The fishermen had worked all night without catching anything. In Luke, Jesus proceeds to teach the fishermen and the others how to ‘fish’ by entering a ship and teaching from it: 

Lk. 5.1—11 (Mk. 1.16-20; Mt. 4.18—22 and Jn. 21.1—12)

‘And it came to pass during the [time] the crowd pressed on him to hear the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret: and he saw two ships standing by the lake, but the fishermen having gone out from them washed the nets. And having entered into one of the ships which was Simon’s, he asked him from the land to put off a little; and having sat down he taught from the ship the crowds. And when he ceased speaking he said to Simon, Put off into the deep and let down your nets for a haul. And answering Simon said to him, Master, through whole the night having laboured, nothing have we taken, but at thy word I will let down the net. And this having done they enclosed of fishes a shoal great; was breaking and net their. And they beckoned to the partners those in the other ship, that coming they should help them; and they came, and filled both the ships, so that were sinking they. And having seen Simon Peter fell at the knees of Jesus saying, Depart from me, for a man a sinner am I, Lord. For astonishment laid hold on him and said all those with him, at the haul of the fishes which they had taken; and in like manner also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And said to Simon Jesus, Fear not; from henceforth men though shalt be capturing. And having brought the ships to land, leaving all they followed him.’

The parallel concepts are as follows: the following of a leader; a ‘battle’ on the lake of Gennesaret - between the Romans and Jews, the Jews of which were in the water (War) and a battle between men and fish (New Testament); the surrounding or enclosing of something to be caught in the lake; the catching of something in the lake - fish (New Testament) - men (War); the sinking of vessels; fish and Jews being caught and brought to shore/land (explicitly stated in Jn. 21.11).

Of course, as stated earlier, what is described in War is not a fishing expedition as we later see presented in the gospels and the narrative does not describe the Jews as being like ‘fish’ caught in the water. However, the ways in which the Jews are caught in the water in War can be likened to fishermen catching fish through spearfishing and bowfishing. Even if unintentional, the context provides the concept figuratively, that is, figuratively speaking, the Jews are described as being in the water and being caught and killed with bows, arrows and spears, and having their heads cut or sliced off, as fishermen would do. I argue the notion cannot be dismissed that the gospel authors intentionally took inspiration from the War narrative when constructing their own. 

2.      ‘Easier to Say Walk Than Forgive’

The narrative in War now explains how Vespasian, whilst in Tarichaeae, had the authority of a judge to forgive ‘sins’ and was being convinced not to allow Jewish rebels to be set free who he recognised as being undeserving of forgiveness or pardon, but finally decides it is easier to allow them to walk free:

War 3.531—538

‘After the battle Vespasian took his seat on his tribunal at Tarichaeae...Vespasian recognised that they were undeserving of pardon and that they would only abuse their liberty to the detriment of their liberators, but he asked himself how he could make away with them: if he killed them on the spot, he suspected that he would bitterly alienate the residents, who would not tolerate the massacre in their city of all these refugees who had sued for mercy; on the other hand, he could not bring himself to let them go, and then, after pledging his word, to fall upon them. However, in the end his friends overcame his scruples by telling him that against the Jews there could be no question of impiety, and that he ought to prefer expediency to propriety when the two were incompatible. Vespasian accordingly granted these aliens an amnesty in equivocal terms, but permitted them to quit the city by only one route, that leading to Tiberias.’

The New Testament describes the authority to forgive ‘sins’ by making Jesus act as a ‘judge’:

Luke 5.17—26 (Mk. 2.1—12; Mt. 9.1—8)

‘And began to reason the scribes and the Pharisees, saying, Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who is able to forgive sins, except alone God? But knowing Jesus their reasonings answering said to them, Why reason ye in hearts your? Which is easier, to say Have been forgiven thee thy sins, or to say, Arise and walk? But that ye may know that authority has the Son of man on the earth to forgive sins, and he said to the paralysed, To thee I say, Arise, and having taken up thy little couch go to house thy. And immediately having stood up before them, having taken up [that] on which he was lying, he departed to his house, glorifying God. And amazement seized all, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to-day. ‘Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed and walk?’

The parallel concepts: both narratives describe the authority of an individual acting as a judge who can forgive ‘sins’ and allows the individual/s to walk free.

3.      ‘Keeping the Sabbath’

War describes Jewish brigands requesting that Titus honour the Sabbath by agreeing to peace terms before taking Gischala, essentially extending the Roman concept of the ‘right hand’ of peace. Titus does this but is unaware that the Jewish brigands have not honoured the Sabbath and have fled in the night for Jerusalem. Therefore, Titus, on this occasion, knows and has honoured the Sabbath better than the Jews:

War 4.94—124

‘Titus must, however, (he said), in deference to the Jewish law, allow them that day, being the seventh, on which they were forbidden alike to have resort to arms and to conclude a treaty of peace...At nightfall John, seeing no Roman guard about town, seized his opportunity and, accompanied not only by his armed followers but by a multitude of non-combatants with their families, fled for Jerusalem...Titus was mortified at failing to visit John’s trickery with instant chastisement...’

In the following passages in the gospels we read of a discussion concerning who is more knowledgeable and better at keeping the Sabbath, Jesus or those who accuse him. Here is the narrative in Luke:

Lk. 6.1 (Mk. 2.23—28; Mt. 12.1—8)

‘But some of the Pharisees said to them, Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the Sabbaths? And answering to them said Jesus, Not even this did ye read, that which did David, when he hungered, himself and those who with him were? How he entered into the house of God, and the loaves of the presentation took, and ate, and gave also to those with him, which it is not lawful to eat except only the priests? And he said to them, Lord is the Son of man also of the Sabbath. And it came to pass on another Sabbath entered he into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man, and his hand the right was withered. And were watching him the scribes and the Pharisees whether on the Sabbath he will heal, that they might find an accusation against him. But he knew their reasonings, and said to the man who withered had the hand, Arise, and stand in the midst. And he having risen up stood. Said then Jesus to them, I will ask you, whether it is lawful on the Sabbaths to do good or evil? life to save or destroy? And having looked around on all them he said to the man, Stretch out thy hand. And he did so, and was restored his hand sound as the other. But they were filled with madness, and consulted with one another [as to] what they should do to Jesus.’

The parallel concepts: descriptions of an individual being better at keeping the Sabbath than a group of others; the offering of a right hand.

4.      ‘Supporters of the Son of Man Are Cast Out’

The narrative in War describes two Jewish priests who are ‘cast out’ and ‘hated’ because they sought peace with Rome and envisioned the same future as that described in the gospels. War describes them predicting the Jews’ destruction if they do not repent. This is a long narrative that describes how Ananus and Jesus tried in vain in support of Vespasian and Titus to stop the rebellion and to convince their fellow Jews to accept the greater power of Rome.

Concerning the ‘Son of man’ concept, I feel it is important to acknowledge here the works of Suetonius and Tacitus and their descriptions that a Jewish prophecy of a coming Messiah had actually, supposedly, pointed to Vespasian and Titus.[14]

 The ancient writers described the defeat of all of Rome’s enemies and declared that Vespasian had brought peace to the empire:

War 4.311—332

‘The fury of the Idumaeans being still unsatiated, they now turned to the city, looting every house and killing all who fell in their way. But, thinking their energies wasted on the common people, they went in search of the chief priests; it was for them that the main rush was made, and they were soon captured and slain...the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem.’

War goes on to state Ananus, ‘knew that the Roman power was irresistible, but, when driven to provide for a state of war, he endeavoured to secure that, if the Jews would not come to terms, the struggle should at least be skilfully conducted. In a word, had Ananus lived, they would undoubtedly either have arranged terms—for he was an effective speaker, whose words carried weight with the people, and was already gaining control even over those who thwarted him—or else, had hostilities continued, they would have greatly retarded the victory of the Romans under such a general. With him was linked Jesus, who, though not comparable with Ananus, stood far above the rest. But it was, I suppose, because God had, for its pollutions, condemned the city to destruction and desired to purge the sanctuary by fire, that He thus cut off those who clung to them with such tender affection. So they who but lately had worn the sacred vestments, led those ceremonies of world-wide significance and been reverenced by visitors to the city from every quarter of the earth, were now seen cast out naked, to be devoured by dogs and beasts of prey. Virtue herself, I think, groaned for these men's fate, bewailing such utter defeat at the hands of vice. Such, however, was the end of Ananus and Jesus.’

The narrative in Luke describes individuals being ‘hated’ and ‘cast out’ for Jesus’s sake — or as this gospel puts it, ‘...for the Son of man’s sake’:

Lk. 6.22 (Mt. 5.1—12)

‘Blessed are ye when shall hate you men, and when they shall cut off you, and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as wicked, on account of the Son of man.’

5.      ‘John Possessed by a ‘Demon’’

In War a John is described as acting in an evil and wicked way and later War 7.184—191 describes the ‘spirits of wicked men’ as ‘demons’: 

War 4.388—394, 402—409

‘But now John, aspiring to despotic power, began to disdain the position of mere equality in honours with his peers, and, gradually gathering round him a group of the more depraved, broke away from the coalition. Invariably disregarding the decisions of the rest, and issuing imperious orders of his own, he was evidently laying claim to absolute sovereignty. Some yielded to him through fear, others from devotion (for he was an expert in gaining supporters by fraud and rhetoric); a large number thought that it would conduce to their own safety that the blame for their daring crimes should henceforth rest upon one individual rather than upon many...And as in the body when inflammation attacks the principal member all the members catch the infection...’

Josephus describes ‘wickedness’ as ‘demons’:

War 7.184—191

‘With all these attendant risks, it possesses one virtue for which it is prized; for the so-called demons – in other words, the spirits of wicked men which enter the living and kill them unless aid is forthcoming...’

War 7.255—269

‘The Sicarii were the first to set the example of this lawlessness and cruelty to their kinsmen, leaving no word unspoken to insult, no deed untried to ruin, the victims of their conspiracy. Yet even they were shown by John to be more moderate than himself. For not only did he put to death all who proposed just and salutary measures, treating such persons as his bitterest enemies among all citizens, but he also in his public capacity loaded his country with evils innumerable, such as one might expect would be inflicted upon men by one who had already dared to practise impiety even towards God.’

The narrative in Luke describes a demon inside John the Baptist:

Lk. 7.33—35 (Mt. 11.2—19)

‘For has come John the Baptist neither bread eating nor wine drinking, and ye say, A demon he has. Has come the Son of man eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold, a man a glutton and a wine-bibber, of tax-gatherers a friend and of sinners; and was justified wisdom by her children all.’

6.      ‘A Demon Named Legion’/ ‘A predatory gang the size of a ‘legion’’

War describes Vespasian in Gadara and the gang of brigands in the wilderness that had left John to be approximately the size of a ‘legion’ Both War and Synoptics use the image of a legion as a destructive force:

War 4.402—415

‘Throughout the other parts of Judaea, moreover, the predatory bands, hitherto quiescent, now began to bestir themselves. And as in the body when inflammation attacks the principal member all the members catch the infection, so the sedition and disorder in the capital gave the scoundrels in the country free licence to plunder; and each gang after pillaging their own village made off into the wilderness. Then joining forces and swearing mutual allegiance, they would proceed by companies-smaller than an army but larger than a mere band of robbers-to fall upon the temples and cities. The unfortunate victims of their attacks suffered the miseries of captives of war, but were deprived of the chance of retaliation, because their foes in robber fashion at once decamped with their prey. There was, in fact, no portion of Judaea which did not share in the ruin of the capital.’

The description ‘smaller than an army but larger than a mere band of robbers’[15] correlates with the approximate size of a legion at that time. Although the term ‘legion’ is used to describe the Roman army, more accurately the legion was not the army, it was the largest unit of the Roman army and one important part of it as a whole, auxiliaries made up the remainder of the army.  

The narrative in Luke describes a man in Gadara possessed by many demons and driven into the desert. The name of the demon is given as ‘Legion’, the name of part of the Roman army:

Lk. 8.26—30 (Mk. 5.1—20; Mt. 8.28—34)

‘And they sailed down to the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. And on his having gone forth upon the land met him a man certain out of his city, who had demons for a long time, and a garment not was wearing, and in a house did not abide, but in the tombs. But having seen Jesus and having cried out he fell down before him, and with a voice loud said, What to me and to thee, Jesus, Son of God the Most High? I beseech of thee not me thou mayest torment. For he was charging the spirit the unclean to come out from the man. For many times it had seized him; and he was bound, with chains and fetters being kept, and breaking the bonds he was driven by the demon into the desert.’

The narrative then reads, ‘And asked him Jesus, saying, What thy is name? And he said, Legion, because demons many had entered into him.’

Following this is also another parallel which concerns the demons that entered ‘about two thousand’ swine (pigs) which are destroyed by drowning in water. Mk. 5.13 gives the number but Mt. 8.28-34 and Lk. 8.26-39 also tell the story. In War 4.429—437 the Jewish rebels destroy themselves by drowning and the number given is ‘about two thousand two hundred’. Immediately following this is a description of the spoils of war listed as asses, sheep, camels, and oxen — but no pigs. If the Jewish rebels are typologically being likened to unclean animals (swine) then they have already been destroyed and cannot be taken as spoils. This is further evidenced by the fact that there was no punctuation in the Greek texts. Therefore the ‘about two thousand two hundred’ can be read as attaching to the previous description about wicked ‘demon’ possessed Jewish rebels destroying themselves in the water:

Greek: πεντακισχιλιοι το δε βιασθεν εμπηδησαι εις τον Ιορδανην πληθος εκουσιως απειρον ην εαλωσαν δε περι δισχιλιους και διακοσιους λεια τε παμπληθης...

Translation: ‘while the number of those who were driven to fling themselves of their own accord into the Jordan was incalculable about two thousand two hundred.’ 

7.      ‘Son of God’

The passage in War describes the ‘divine providence’ that had helped Vespasian secure the throne:

War 4.619—629

‘Now that fortune was everywhere furthering his wishes and that circumstances had for the most part conspired in his favour, Vespasian was led to think that divine providence had assisted him to grasp the empire and that some just destiny had placed the sovereignty of the world within his hands.’

Later in the War narrative we are provided a description of how Vespasian’s rise supposedly fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecies and how God was on the side of the Romans:

War 6.308—314

‘But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil.’

As stated earlier, Tacitus and Suetonius appear to have interpreted the prophecy the same way. This therefore was claiming that Vespasian became Caesar by divine will. Upon his death Vespasian was deified which in turn made Titus essentially the ‘Son of God’. Shortly after he began his reign Vespasian did deify his family, elevating them to a status above others and allowing them to be worshipped through the establishing of a priest hood.[16]

And War 6.407—415 describes Titus saying, ‘“God indeed”, he exclaimed, “has been with us in the war. God it was who brought down the Jews from these strongholds; for what power have human hands or engines against these towers?”

The narrative in Luke parallels the above by describing Jesus asking the disciples who they think he is:

Lk. 9.18—20 (Mk. 8.27—29; Mt. 16.13—19 ‘the Son of God the living’)

‘Whom me do pronounce the crowds to be? And they answering said, “John the Baptist”; and others, Elias; and others, that prophet some of the ancients has arisen. And he said to them, But ye whom me do ye pronounce to be? And answering Peter said, “The Christ of God.”’

8.      ‘Binding and Loosening’

War describes what Titus apparently said to his father concerning the release of Josephus from his bonds:

War 4.626—633

‘Titus, who was beside his father, said, “Justice demands, father, that Josephus should lose his disgrace along with his fetters. If instead of loosing, we sever his chains, he will be as though he had never been in bonds at all.” For such is the practice in cases where a man has been unjustly put in irons. Vespasian approving, an attendant came forward and severed the chain with an axe. Thus Josephus won his enfranchisement as the reward of his divination, and his power of insight into the future was no longer discredited.’

The sequential parallel narrative to the ‘Son of God’ parallel can be found in Mt. 16.14—20, not in Luke. But in Matthew the ‘Binding and Loosening’ parallel of the individual, Simon Peter, being given the ‘keys’ follows the ‘Son of God’ passage:

Mt. 16.14—20 (Mk. 8.27—30; Lk. 9.18—21)

‘And answering Simon Peter said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of God the living...And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatever thou mayest bind on the earth, shall be bound in the heavens; and whatever thou mayest loose on the earth, shall be loosed in the heavens.’

9.      ‘Messengers/Forces Sent Ahead’

War records that Titus marched from Caesarea and gave orders for part of his forces to meet him at Jerusalem:

War 5.38—46

‘With the aid of the engines thus impiously constructed John hoped to master his foes, but God rendered his labour vain by bringing the Romans upon the scene before he had set a single man upon his towers. For Titus, having assembled part of his forces at headquarters and sent orders to the rest to join him at Jerusalem, was now on the march from Caesarea.’

Luke describes Jesus going out of Galilee and steadfastly going to Jerusalem after he has sent messengers beforehand:

Lk. 9.51

‘And it came to pass when were being fulfilled the days of the receiving him up, that he his face steadfastly set to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers before face his.’

10.  ‘An Attack and Goods Stolen’

War 2.500—555 had described the unexpected retreat of Cestius and the Twelfth Legion who were at first attacked by brigands on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. During the early part of the retreat Cestius spent the night with his legion at Mount Scopus, the hill on the road to Jericho. Then shortly afterwards, Cestius and the legion were attacked on the pass of Beth-Horon in Samaria whilst still retreating. The Twelfth Legion lost mules, clothes and goods and were left half dead.

Later, in War 5, they reappear with the commanding general Titus. He presumably either refurbished this legion himself or gave orders for them to be refurbished and proceeded to walk with them and other legions in the opposite direction towards Jerusalem. War 5 briefly reminds us of the past event as described in War 2.500—555:

War 5.38—51

‘He had the three legions which under his father had previously ravaged Judaea, and the twelfth which under Cestius had once been defeated; this legion, bearing a general reputation for valour, now, with the recollection of what it had suffered, advanced with the greater alacrity for revenge...As Titus advanced into enemy territory, his vanguard consisted of the contingents of the kings with the whole body of auxiliaries. Next to these were the pioneers and camp measurers, then the officers’ baggage-train...The servants attached to each legion followed in a body, preceded by the baggage train. Last of all came the mercenaries with a rear guard to keep watch on them. Leading his army forward in this orderly array, according to Roman usage, Titus advanced through Samaria to Gophna, previously captured by his father and now garrisoned. After resting here one night he set forward at dawn, and at the end of a full day's march encamped in the valley which is called by the Jews in their native tongue “Valley of thorns,”...’

The story of the ‘Good Samaritan’ in Lk. 10.25—37 recollects a story that took place in the past of how robbers had attacked a man on the road going from Jerusalem to Jericho and stole his mule. A Samaritan man is then described as coming along after the attack took place and helping the man; the parable does not state which direction the Samaritan man was travelling. I feel it is worth noting that the same Greek word λησταις for robbers/brigands is used in both War and Luke:

Lk. 10.29—37

‘A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and robbers fell among, who both having stripped him and wounds having inflicted went away, leaving [him], half dead being. By a coincidence now a priest certain went down in that road, and having seen him he passed by on the opposite side; and in like manner also a Levite, being at the spot, having come and having seen passed by on the opposite side. A Samaritan but certain journeying, came to him, and having seen him was moved with compassion, and having approached bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and having put him on his own beast brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow going forth, taking out two denarii he gave [them] to the innkeeper, and said to him, Take care of him, and whatsoever thou mayest expend more, I on my coming back will repay thee. Which therefore of these three seems to thee neighbour to have been of him who fell among these robbers? And he said, He who shewed compassion towards him. Said therefore to him Jesus, Go and thou do likewise.’

11.  ‘The Closed Door’

This next parallel is more figurative in War. It describes Titus arriving in the area of Jerusalem and being joined at night by Legion five and therefore he had with him three legions at Mount Scopus. The ‘door’ of Jerusalem was most certainly closed to the Roman army and War describes the efforts to gain entrance. Through persistence, Titus and his army eventually did ‘open the door’ and got inside. The stone-projectors used to gain entrance in the ‘Stones Cry Out’ parallel already discussed, but runs in sequence below shortly, were called ‘scorpions’:

War 5.66—71

‘Caesar, being joined during the night by the legion from Emmaus, next day broke up his camp and advanced to Scopus, as the place is called from which was obtained the first view of the city and the grand pile of the temple gleaming afar; whence the spot, a low prominence adjoining the northern quarter of the city, is appropriately named Scopus.’

The narrative in Luke describes a closed door. But the last lines of the passage ask the questions, ‘And which of you who [is] a father shall ask for the son bread, a stone will he give to him?’ and, ‘Or also if he should ask an egg, will he give to him a scorpion?’:

Lk. 11.5—12

‘And he said to them, Who among you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight, and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves, since a friend of mine is come off a journey to me, and I have not what I shall set before him; and he from within answering should say, Not me trouble cause; already the door has been shut, and my children with me in bed are I cannot rise up to give to thee I say to you if even not he will give to him, having risen up, because of [his] being his friend, yet because of his importunity having risen he will give him as many as he needs. And I to you say, Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it will be opened. And which of you who [is] a father shall ask for the son bread, a stone will he give to him? If also a fish, instead of a fish a serpant will he give to him? Or also if he should ask an egg, will he give to him a scorpion?

12.  ‘The House of Satan Divided’

War describes the different factions inside Jerusalem as divided against each other and only working together when the Roman army comes to Jerusalem, but, as history shows, the divide only added to their eventual demise:

War 5.66—79

‘And now for the first time the mutual dissension of the factions within the town, hitherto incessantly at strife, was checked by the war from without suddenly bursting in full force upon them. The rival parties, beholding with dismay the Romans forming three several encampments, started a sorry alliance and began to ask each other what they were waiting for, or what possessed them to let themselves be choked by the erection of three fortifications; the enemy unmolested was building himself a rival city, while they sat behind their ramparts, like spectators of excellent and expedient operations, with hands and weapons idle! “Is then”, they exclaimed, “our valour to be displayed only against ourselves, while the Romans, through our party strife, make a bloodless conquest of the city?”

The Gospel of Luke has Jesus describe a kingdom divided against itself which leads to its demise:

Lk. 11.17—20

‘But he knowing their thoughts said to them, Every kingdom against itself divided is brought to desolation; and a house against a house falls. And if also Satan against himself be divided, how shall stand his kingdom? because ye say, by Beelzebul I cast out the demons. And if I by Beelzebul cast out the demons, your sons by whom do they cast out? on account of this judges of you they shall be. But if by [the] finger of God I cast out the demons, then is come upon you the kingdom of God.’

13.  ‘Overpowering a Man in Armour’

War describes the context of men in armour, the tenth legion, camped on the Mount of Olives, building their ‘homes’ and being attacked by a stronger opponent and eventually being overpowered:

War 5.72—100

‘...the enemy unmolested was building himself a rival city, while they sat behind their ramparts, like spectators of excellent and expedient operations, with hands and weapons idle! “Is then," they exclaimed, “our valour to be displayed only against ourselves, while the Romans, through our party strife, make a bloodless conquest of the city?” Stimulating each other with such language and uniting forces, they seized their weapons, dashed out suddenly against the tenth legion, and racing across the ravine with a terrific shout, fell upon the enemy while engaged upon his fortifications. The latter to facilitate their work were in scattered groups and to this end had laid aside most of their arms; for they imagined that the Jews would never venture upon a sally or that, if moved to do so, their energies would be dissipated by their dissensions. They were therefore taken by surprise and thrown into disorder. Abandoning their work, some instantly retreated, while many rushing for their arms were struck down before they could round upon the foe.’

The Lukan narrative describes the similar concept of a fully armed man guarding his house being overpowered by a stronger individual:

Lk. 11.21—23 (Mk. 3.20—27; Mt. 12.22—30)

‘When the strong [man] being armed may keep his own dwelling, in peace are his goods; but as soon as the stronger than he coming upon [him] shall overcome him, panoply his he takes away in which he had trusted, and his spoils he divides. He that is not with me against me is, and he that gathers not with me scatters.’

14.  ‘Increasing Crowds’

Immediately following the above description, War describes the increasing crowds:

War 5.72—79

‘The Jews meanwhile were continually being reinforced by others who were encouraged by the success of the first party, and with fortune favouring them seemed both to themselves and to the enemy far in excess of their actual numbers.’

The narrative in Luke describes the same concept of the crowds or numbers of people increasing:

Lk. 11.29 (Mt. 12.38—42)

‘But the crowds being thronged together he began to say, generation this wicked is...’

15.  ‘Laying Ambushes/Lying in Wait’

War describes how the Jews tricked and trapped the Roman soldiers and were laying in wait to ambush them:

War 5.107—121

‘During this period the Jews contrived the Jews contrived the following stratagem to trick the Romans. The more daring of the insurgents, issuing forth from the so called Women's Towers, as though they had been ejected by the partisans of peace and were in terror of being attacked by the Romans, kept close together cowering in a bunch. Meanwhile their comrades, lining the walls so as to be taken for the populace, shouted “Peace”, begged for protection, and invited the Romans to enter, promising to open the gates; these cries they accompanied by showers of stones aimed at their own men, as if to drive them from the gates... The pretended outcasts at first retired before them, but, as soon as the Romans came between the gateway towers, they darted out and surrounded and attacked them in rear...Then, with vulgar abuse of their good fortune, they jeered at the Romans for being deluded by a ruse and brandishing their bucklers danced and shouted for joy. The soldiers, for their part, were met by threats from their officers and a furious Caesar. “These Jews,” he protested, “with desperation for their only leader, do everything with forethought and circumspection: their stratagems and ambuscades are carefully planned, and their schemes are further favoured by fortune because of their obedience and their mutual loyalty and confidence...”’

The narrative in Luke also describes a trap and a trick. The context in Luke is that of the Pharisees attempting to make Jesus say something that incriminates him:  

Lk. 11.53—54 (Mk. 12.13—27; Mt. 22.15—17)

‘And as was saying he these things to them began the scribes and the Pharisees urgently to press upon [him], and to make speak him about many things; watching him and seeking to catch something out of his mouth that they might accuse him.’

16.  ‘Innocent are Beaten Worse Than the Guilty’

The parallels below describe innocent individuals being beaten worse than guilty individuals:

War 5.100—106

‘The purlieus of the sanctuary were instantly a scene of the utmost disorder and confusion, the people who had no connexion with the party strife regarding this as an indiscriminate attack upon all, the Zealots as directed against themselves alone. The latter, however, neglecting any longer to guard the gates and not waiting to come to close quarters with the intruders, leapt down from the battlements and took refuge in the temple vaults; while the visitors from the city, cowering beside the altar and huddled together around the sanctuary, were trampled underfoot and mercilessly struck with clubs and swords. Many peaceable citizens from enmity and personal spite were slain by their adversaries as partisans of the opposite faction, and any who in the past had offended one of the conspirators, being now recognized as a Zealot, was led off to punishment. But while the innocent were thus brutally treated, the intruders granted a truce to the criminals and let them go when they emerged from the vaults.’

Lk. 12.47—48 (Mt. 24.45—51)

‘But that bondman who know the will of his Lord, and prepared not nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]; but he who not knew, and did [things] worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few. And everyone to whom was given much, much will be required from him; and to whom was committed much, the more will they ask of him.’

17.  ‘A Group Divided into Three is Reduced into Two’

War 5.105—106

‘Being now in possession of the inner court of the temple and all the stores which it contained, they could bid defiance to Simon. The sedition, hitherto of a tripartite character, was thus again reduced to two factions.’

Lk. 12.51—53 (Mt. 10.34—36)

‘Think ye that peace I came to give in the earth? No, I say to you, but rather division; for there will be from henceforth five in house one divided, three against two and two against three.’

18.  ‘Fruit Tree Cut Down’

The narrative in War describes Titus ordering the ground from Scopus to Jerusalem to be levelled, which included the cutting down of the fruit trees:

War 5.106—108

‘Titus, now deciding to abandon Scopus and encamp nearer the city gave orders to his main army to level the intervening ground right up to the walls. Every fence and palisade with which the inhabitants had enclosed their gardens and plantations having accordingly been swept away, and every fruit tree within the area felled, the cavities and gullies on the route were filled up, the protuberant rocks demolished with tools of iron, and the whole intervening space from Scopus to Herod’s monuments, adjoining the spot called the Serpents’ pool, was thus reduced to a dead level.’

The narrative in Luke describes the ‘foreseeing’ of a fruit tree being cut down.

Lk. 13.6—9 (Mk. 13.28—31; Mt. 24.32—35)

‘And he spoke of a parable: A fig-tree had a certain [man] in his vineyard planted; and he came fruit seeking on it and did not find [any]. And he said to the vinedresser, Behold, three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and do not find [any]; cut down it, why even the ground does it render useless? But he answering says to him, Sir, let alone it also this year, until I shall dig about it and put manure, and if indeed it should bear fruit-; but if not, hereafter thou shalt cut down it.’

19.  ‘Narrow Gate and Shut Door’

The passages in War describe Jerusalem in detail in (5.129—250) and included in the description are points of a compass: north, east, south, west. War makes it clear to the reader the narrow gate of Jerusalem was shut to the Roman army. Titus therefore placed his strongest forces at the north and west of the city, seven deep in line, and Titus placed himself at the northwest corner. The tenth legion were placed at the northeast corner on the Mount of Olives: 

War 5.129—137

‘...while he privately reflected how best to avenge himself on the Jews for their stratagem. In four days all the intervening ground up to the walls was levelled; and Titus, now anxious to secure a safe passage for the divisions baggage and camp-followers, drew up the flower of his forces facing the northern and western portions of the wall, in lines seven deep: the infantry in front, the cavalry behind, each of these arms in three ranks, the archers forming a seventh line in the middle. The sallies of the Jews being held in check by this formidable array, the beasts of burden belonging to the three legions with their train of followers passed securely on. Titus himself encamped about two furlongs from the ramparts, at the angle opposite the tower called Psephinus, where the circuit of the wall bends back from the north to the west. The other division of the army entrenched itself opposite the tower named Hippicus, likewise at a distance of two furlongs from the city. The tenth legion kept its position on the Mount of Olives.’

The Lukan passage directly describes a narrow gate, shut door and points of a compass, that is, people coming from east, west, north and south:

Lk. 13.22—30

‘And he went through by cities and villages teaching, and progress making towards Jerusalem. And said one to him, Lord, [are] few those being saved? But he said to them, Strive with earnestness to enter in through the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, will seek to enter in, and will not be able. From the time shall have risen up the master of the house, and shall have shut the door, and ye begin without to stand and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us; and he answering will say to you, I do not know you whence you are. Then will ye begin to say, We ate in thy presence and drank, and in our streets thou didst teach. And he will say, I tell you, Not I do know you whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] the workers of unrighteousness. There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth, when ye see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out. And they shall come from east and west, and from north and south, and shall recline in the kingdom of God. And lo, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last.’

20.  ‘The Building of a Tower/Towers’

War describes Titus inspecting the walls of Jerusalem leading him to decide where to eventually build towers for his attack:

War 5.255—261;

‘Such being the situation within the walls, Titus, with some picked cavalry, made a tour of inspection without, to select a spot against which to direct his attack.’

War 5.287—292

‘For Titus had given command for the construction of three towers, fifty cubits high, to be erected on the respective embankments, in order that from them he might repel the defenders of the ramparts; and one of these accidentally fell in the middle of the night.’

The narrative in Luke describes how to best build a tower:

Lk. 14.28—30

‘For which of you desiring a tower to build, not first having sat down counts the cost, if he has the [means] for [its] completion? that lest having laid of it a foundation and not being able to finish, all who see [it] should begin to mock at him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’

21.  ‘The Sending of a Delegation’

War describes an attempt at discussing terms of peace:

War 5.261—267

‘In the meantime, while Titus was riding round the city, one of his friends, named Nicanor, having approached too near with Josephus, was wounded by an arrow in the left shoulder while endeavouring to parley with those on the wall, to whom he was not unknown, on the subject of peace.’

The narrative in Luke describes the same concept:

Lk. 14.31—32

‘Or what king proceeding to engage with another king in war not having sat down first takes counsel whether able he is with ten thousand to meet him with twenty thousand who comes against him? But if not, still he far off being, an embassy having sent he asks the [terms] for peace.’

22.  ‘The ‘Triumphal Entrance and Stones Cry Out’

This parallel has been discussed earlier.

23.  ‘Jerusalem Encircled With a Wall’

The passage in War has been and is currently understood by scholars as the basis for the prophecy Jesus makes:[17]

War 5.493—501

‘If, however, they wished to combine speed and security, they must throw a wall round the whole city: only thus could every exit be blocked, and the Jews would then either in utter despair of salvation surrender the city, or, wasted by famine, fall an easy prey; for he himself would not remain altogether inactive, but would once more turn his attention to the earthworks when he had an enfeebled foe to obstruct him. And if anyone considered this a great and arduous operation, let him reflect that it ill became Romans to undertake a trivial task and that without toil nothing great could lightly be achieved by any man.’

Lk. 19.43—44

‘...for shall come days upon thee that shall cast about thine enemies a rampart thee, and shall close around thee and keep in thee on every side, and shall level with the ground thee and keep thy children in thee, and shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone, because thou knewest not the season of visitation thy.’

24.  ‘Thieves Driven From the Temple’

War 6.314—358 describes Titus getting possession of the first wall and attacking the second that surrounded the lower city/town. He storms the temple and drives the ‘robbers’ away that were in front of the temple. First I will present the narrative that appears in War 5.301—304 to provide context:

War 5.301—304

‘...and when the Romans mounted the breach which Victor had made, all deserted their posts and fled back to the second wall. Those who had scaled the ramparts now opened the gates and admitted the whole army. The Romans having thus on the fifteenth day (of the siege), being the seventh of the month Artemisius, become the masters of the first wall, razed a large part of it along with the northern quarter of the city, previously destroyed by Cestius.’

The parallel sequence then resumes when Titus clears the brigands (robbers/bandits-ληστας) from the area of the temple by letting them go:

War 6.314—358

‘The Romans, now that the rebels had fled to the city, and the sanctuary itself and all around it were in flames, carried their standards into the temple court...however, on the fifth day, the priests, now famishing, came down and, being conducted by the guards to Titus, implored him to spare their lives. But he told them that the time for pardon had for them gone by...and so ordered them to execution. The tyrants and their followers, beaten on all sides in the war and surrounded by a wall preventing any possibility of escape, now invited Titus to a parley. Anxious, with his innate humanity, at all events to save the town, and instigated by his friends, who supposed that the brigands had at length been brought to reason, Titus took up a position on the west of the outer court of the temple; there being at this point gates opening above the Xystus and a bridge which connected the upper city with the temple and now parted the tyrants from Caesar...” Throw down your arms, surrender your persons, and I grant you your lives, like a lenient master of a household punishing the incorrigible and preserving the rest for myself....” To this they replied that they could not accept a pledge from him, having sworn never to do so; but they asked permission to pass through his line of circumvallation with their wives and children, undertaking to retire to the desert and to leave the city to him.’

The narrative in War 6.358—364 continues to say, ‘On the following day the Romans, having routed the brigands from the lower town...’

The Lukan narrative has Jesus going into the Temple and casting out robbers (ληστων):

Lk. 19.45—47 (Mk. 11.15—19; Mt. 21.12—17; Jn. 2.13—17)

‘And having entered into the temple he began to cast out those selling in it and buying, saying to them, It has been written, My house a house of prayer is; but ye it have made a den of robbers. And he was teaching day by day in the temple; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking him to destroy...’

Finally, I will briefly analyse two parallels that are not in sequence but are important to note and examine. They concern the ‘signs’ preceding the destruction of Jerusalem as presented in War and the gospels and the ‘abomination and desolation’ narratives appearing in both.  

1.      ‘‘Signs’ Before Destruction’

The War narrative describes the revealing of a ‘sign’ that ‘foretold’ Jerusalem’s destruction.

War 6.295—301

‘For before sunset throughout all parts of the country chariots were seen in the air and armed battalions hurtling through the clouds and encompassing the cities.’

The narratives in Matthew and Luke state that the signs in the sky will indicate the coming of the ‘Son of man’.

Mt. 24.27 (Lk. 17.24)

‘For as the lightning comes forth from [the] east and appears as far as [the] west, so shall be also the coming of the Son of man.’

War does describe the Roman army entering Judea from the east and continuing west.

2.      ‘Abomination of Desolation’

Towards the end of the narratives in War and the Synoptic gospels we read descriptions of the abomination of desolation event. In War we are told the continual sacrifice or daily offering ceased on the seventeenth of Panemus (July) C.E. 70. Reading Whiston’s version we see him remark at the beginning of chapter two, ‘This was a very remarkable day indeed...when, according to Daniel’s prediction, 606 years before, the Romans “in half a week caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease”...for from the month of February A.D. 66, about which time Vespasian entered on this war,[18] to this very time, was just three years and a half.’

The prophetic statement found in the Book of Daniel 12.11 in the Old Testament states that the abomination of desolation event would continue for three and a half years.

War 6.91—111

‘Titus now ordered the troops that were with him to raze the foundations of Antonia and to prepare an easy ascent for the whole army. Then, having learnt that on that day-it was the seventeenth of Panemus-the so-called continual sacrifice had for lack of men ceased to be offered to God and that the people were in consequence terribly despondent, he put Josephus forward with instructions to repeat to John the same message as before, namely “that if he was obsessed by a criminal passion for battle, he was at liberty to come out with as many as he chose and fight, without involving the city and the sanctuary in his own ruin; but that he should no longer pollute the Holy Place nor sin against God; and that he had his permission to perform the interrupted sacrifices with the help of such Jews as he might select... Who knows not the records of the ancient prophets and that oracle which threatens this poor city and is even now coming true? For they foretold that it would then be taken whensoever one should begin to slaughter his own countrymen. And is not the city, aye and the whole temple, filled with your corpses? God it is then, God Himself, who with the Romans is bringing the fire to purge His temple and exterminating a city so laden with pollutions.’

The above narrative is paralleled in the Synoptic gospels, but the narrative appears in different contexts and, therefore, places. Mark and Matthew use both the terms ‘abomination’ and ‘desolation’ and we should also note the line ‘he who reads let him understand’. Only those, in this case the literate elite, who had read both narratives in War-the only work to document the conflict in Judea at that time-and the gospels, would understand what both works were saying. The first is that the desolation passage in Luke is, in fact, in the correct sequential place. The second is that the ‘abomination and desolation’ and ‘cessation of daily sacrifices’ are describing the same event and therefore early Christian scholars, such as the individuals known to us as Tertullian, Cyprian and Justin Martyr would proceed to try and justify it.[19] It is also important to note that the narrative in Luke does not use the term ‘abomination’ only the term ‘desolation’ and specifically mentions Jerusalem surrounded by armies:

Lk. 21.10—20

‘Then he was saying to them, Shall rise up nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; also earthquakes great in different places and famines and pestilences shall there be, fearful sights and signs from heaven great shall there be. Before but these things all they will lay upon you hands their, and will persecute [you], delivering up to synagogues and prisons, bringing [you] before kings and governors, on account of my name; but it shall turn out to you for a testimony. Settle therefore in your hearts not to premeditate to make a defence; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which shall not be able to reply to nor to resist all those opposing you. But ye will be delivered up even by parents and brethren and relations and friends, and they will put to death [some] from among you, and ye will be hated by all because of my name. And a hair of your head in no wise may perish. By your patient endurance gain your souls. But when ye see being encircled with armies Jerusalem then know that has drawn near her desolation.’

Mk. 13.14

‘But when ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it should not (he who reads let him understand), then those in Judea let them flee to the mountains...’

Mt. 24.7—15

‘For shall rise up nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in [different] places. But all those [are] a beginning of throes. Then they will deliver up you to tribulation, and will kill you; and ye will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. And then will be offended many, and one another they will deliver up and will hate one another; and many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many; and because shall have been multiplied lawlessness, will grow cold the love of the many; but he who endures to [the] end he shall be saved. And there shall be proclaimed these glad tidings of the kingdom in all the habitable earth, for a testimony to all the nations; and then shall come the end. When therefore ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken by Daniel the prophet, standing in [the] place holy (he who reads let him understand)...’

Concerning the last parallel, an argument may be made that the man we know as Josephus simply wished to make the Jews believe God had been responsible for their destruction. Therefore he proceeded to narrate the destruction of Jerusalem with Daniel's prophecies in mind and by chance the parallel between War and the New Testament, the forty-year cycle of Exodus, occurred. This argument could be logical if it were the only parallel, but because of the number and sequence of parallels, the chance of the end parallel being mere coincidence becomes highly unlikely.

IV CONCLUSION

When an open minded, non-polemical and non-dismissive approach is taken concerning a claim that specific sequential parallels exist between War and the Synoptic gospels, it can be concluded that the claim is accurate and should be taken seriously. The above also supports, whether they wish to acknowledge or accept that support, the views of some Josephan and New Testament mainstream scholars that the author of Luke used Josephus’s work as a source.[20] Among those scholars are Steve Mason, who has argued that Luke and Josephus share overlapping historiographical aims and narrative strategies, and Gregory Sterling, who has noted thematic and structural resonances between the two. While these scholars stop short of suggesting direct Flavian involvement, they nonetheless maintain that Luke-Acts shows knowledge of Josephus’s work, or at minimum, was composed in a literary environment where Josephus was circulating. This demonstrates that the idea of Luke using Josephus as a source is not a fringe claim, but one already entertained within mainstream Josephan and New Testament studies.

Some parallels are by no means obvious and the contexts are different, but the narrative concepts are the same. The available evidence strongly suggests that the man we know as Josephus was active in the same elite literary circles as the gospel authors. The cumulative pattern points to Gospel authors operating in the same elite literary environment as Josephus — the Flavian court[21][22] and its immediate intellectual orbit — where The Jewish War was written, read, and repurposed.[23] Of course this is a controversial conclusion because it shows the ministry narrative to be predominantly invention,[24][25] and not just the mythological concepts and themes long known among classicists.[26]

Taken together, the most coherent reading is that the gospels were composed under Flavian influence, in the aftermath of the Jewish War, and that they recast the conflict as submission to Rome and to divine will. If this explanation is resisted, an alternative still has to account for the consistent sequencing of events, the mirrored themes, the deliberate wordplay, and the shared reliance on scriptural material housed in Rome after 70 CE.

If the Synoptic authors were not working within the Flavian–Josephan literary world, how could they have accessed The Jewish War quickly enough — and closely enough — to construct such detailed narrative parallels? The work was written under Flavian patronage in Greek and circulated among educated elites. For small or provincial Jewish groups in Palestine, sustained access to that text is difficult to explain. For literate elites connected with the Flavian court in Rome or Antioch, it is not.

The convergences outlined here therefore place real strain on models that rely on uncontrolled oral tradition to explain the origins of the Gospel narratives, and they invite a reassessment of early Christianity’s formation, its early presence in Rome, and the traditional accounts of persecution.[27]

Editorial note on prior submission (JRS)

An earlier, shorter version of this article was submitted to the Journal of Roman Studies. The present version reflects substantial revision and expansion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbiv, K. 2023: ‘Evidence of the Roman Attack on the Third Wall of Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period’, Atiqot 111, The Science of Ancient Warfare and Defense, 103—118.

Buth, R. and Pierce, C. 2014: ‘Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean “Aramiac”?’ in R. Buth and R.S. Notley (eds), The Language Environment of First Century Judaea (Brill, 2014), 88—89.

Cooley, M.G.L. 2023: The Flavians, Cambridge.

Eve, E. 2008: ‘Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria’, New Testament Studies 54, 1—17.

Ferrill, A. 1965: ‘Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian’, The Classical Journal 60(6), 267—269.

Hammond, M. 2017: Josephus Jewish War, Oxford World’s Classics.

Harris, W.V. 1991: Ancient Literacy, Harvard.

Henderson, B.W. 1969: Five Roman Emperors: Vespasian , Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, A.D. 69-117, New York.

Hezser, C. 2001: Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Germany.

Konig, J., Oikonomopoulou, K. and Woolf, G. 2013: Ancient Libraries, Cambridge.

Mason, S. 2016: ‘Josephus’s Judean War’, in H.H. Chapman and Z. Rodgers (eds), A Companion To Josephus, Wiley—Blackwel, 16—17.

Mason, S. 2022: ‘Was Josephus a Source for Luke-Acts?’, in J. Verheyden and J.S. Kloppenborg and G. Roskam and S. Schorn (eds), On Using Sources In Graeco-Roman, Jewish And Early Christian Literature, Peeters, 199—244.

Roberts, A. 1995: The Works of Sulpitius Severus, Hendrickson Publishers.

Rosenmeyer, P. 2001: Ancient Epistolary Fiction: The Letter in Greek Literature, Cambridge, 196—197.

Schaff, P. 2015: The Complete Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Collection, Catholic Way Publishing.

Shaw, B. 2015: The Myth of the Neronian Persecution. Journal of Roman Studies, 105, 73—100.

Shaw, B. 2018: ‘Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution’, New Testament Studies, 64(2), 231—242. 

Smith, C.W.F. 1959: ‘Fishers of Men: Footnotes on a Gospel Figure’, The Harvard Theological Review 52(3): 187—203.

Walsh, R. 2021: The Origins of Early Christian Literature Contextualising the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture, Cambridge.

Wassell, B.E. and Llewelyn, S.R. 2014: ‘Fishers of Humans’, the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, and Conceptual Blending Theory’, Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (3), 627—46.

Woolf, G. 2022: Rome An Empire’s Story, Oxford.

Yeager, S. 2004: ‘The Siege of Jerusalem’ and Biblical Exegesis: Writing about Romans in Fourteenth-Century England’, The Chaucer Review, 39(1), 70—102.

[1] The Loeb Classical Library version of Josephus’s work has been predominantly used throughout this article for presenting the English translation of the Greek. However, at certain points I have also compared the Loeb translation with the translation done by Martin Hammond. I have also compared the Greek text of the Teubner series with the Greek text used by the Loeb Classical Library and the Brill Scholarly Editions Flavius Josephus Online. Occasional reference to William Whiston’s translation is made where appropriate.

[2] The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry has been used for the gospel passages because it is one of the best examples of the completed texts.

[3] First presented in 2005 by Joseph Atwill in his book Caesar’s Messiah.

[4] Arbiv 2023: 103—18

[5] Hammond translates this as “Sonny-boy coming”, which is not as faithful to the Greek text as seen in the Loeb version and Teubner series: Flavii Iosephi Opera Omnia ab Immanuele Bekkero Recognita, Volumen Sextum (The Complete Works of Josephus Flavius Revised by Immanuel Bekkero, Volume Six) p. 32. Also see the Greek text used in the Brill Scholarly Editions Flavius Josephus Online: https://scholarlyeditions.brill.com/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0526.tlg004.fjo-ed1-grc:5.272?q=%CE%BF%20%CF%85%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82%20%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%B9&qk=form (Accessed: 1 Feb 2025).    

[6] Buth and Pierce 2014: 88—9.

[7] Steve Mason has argued an hypothesis that a first version of War was in Aramaic and may have been letters rather than a complete ‘book’ in ‘Josephus’s Judean War’ in Chapman and Rodgers 2016: 16—17.

[8] Furthermore, we are told Vespasian approved those histories written during his rule. He, along with others mentioned by Josephus, would apparently not tolerate the publishing of what they determined to be distorted accounts of events or words expressing true negative views towards those in positions of power (Ap. 1.48—52; Tac., His, 1.1; Plin., His. Nat. preface. Also see Ferrill 1965: 267—69. Vespasian also apparently banished those who spoke against his rule (Dio 65.12—14).

[9] As translated by Thackeray.

[10] As translated by Hammond 2017: 277.

[11] We read that Jesus describes himself as ‘the Son of man’ in Mk, Mt, Lk and Jn.

[12] Smith 1959: 187—203; Wassell and Llewelyn 2014: 627—46. Luke 5.3—11 and Jn. 21.3—11 can be interpreted as either the image of ‘fishers of men’ as symbolising salvation or gathering people for judgement; Lk. 5.10 reads, ‘And said to Simon Jesus, Fear not; from henceforth men thou shalt be capturing.’ The image of the catching of fish is implying the calling of people to Christ. In Jeremiah, the image of ‘fish’ or fishing is symbolising the pulling of people out of their homeland.   

[13] The translation by Hammond is similar to the translation done by H. St. J. Thackeray for the Loeb Classical Library. See Hammond 2017: 199 (Ebook), ‘some were crushed together with their boats when caught between colliding rafts. Anyone resurfacing from the water was immediately stopped by an arrow, and those desperately trying to climb on board the enemy vessels had their heads or hands sliced off by the Romans...‘the survivors’ boats were rounded up and forced to run for the shore. As they poured out of them many were shot down while still in the water, and many who did jump out onto land were killed by the Romans on the beach’.

[14] Tac., His, 1.10—11; 5.13.3; Suet., Vesp, 4.5. Vespasian is also portrayed as performing ‘healing miracles’ akin to Jesus in Tac. His. 4.81; Suet., Vesp. 7.2—3; Dio 65.8. Mary Beard mentions this in Emperor Of Rome, p. 72 (Ebook), although she considers this attribution as ‘one way of compensating for a lack of imperial connections.’ These ‘miracle’ descriptions are not found in War, likely because doing so would contradict that narrative’s objective and claim that it was the Jewish God on Rome’s side. Eric Eve follows this line of reasoning, see Eve 2008: 1—17.

[15] Compare with Hammond 2017: 235 ‘smaller than an army, but larger than a mere band of brigands’.

[16] Henderson 1969: 29; Cooley 2023: 250—51.

[17] For example see Yeager 2004: 70—102.

[18] Vespasian replaced Cestius Gallus after his defeat in 66 CE at Beth-horon (War 3.4).

[19] For examples see Schaff 2015: Vol. 3, Pt 7; Roberts 1995: 102.

[20] Mason 2022: 199—244. 

[21] A recent evaluation of writing abilities comes from the NT scholarship field itself in the work of Associate Professor at the University of Miami, Robyn Faith Walsh. She argues for a Roman elite authorship behind the Synoptic gospels in the aftermath of the Jewish War. It is logical to put forward the conjecture, as the late British NT scholar James Dunn did, that stories circulated orally in a largely illiterate society. However, Walsh concludes, and I agree, that any oral tradition is irretrievable and the oral tradition narrative has been passed on by nineteenth century Biblical scholarship assumption and taken as fact; Walsh does not consider the ruling elite as the possible authors, but in my view no possibility should be dismissed. See Walsh 2021: 8-9, 135—36, 149—55.

[22] Much evidence in Classical Studies indicates that during the period in question only those with elite education could have produced complex works which the gospels are considered to be. Numerous publications provide evidence for the costly process of producing, copying, storing and distributing ancient ‘books’. See Hezser 2001: 496; Harris 1991: 11—12, 337; Konig et al 2013: 6—7, 301.

[23] We read in War 160-168 that the Jewish scroll of the law (νομον) was taken from Jerusalem and stored in the imperial palace in Rome. Also see Hammond 2017: 353.

[24] Although Walsh does not determine the content of the New Testament to be invention to the extent shown in this article, she does conclude that the history of the early church in Acts to be ‘invented tradition’. See Walsh 2021: 12. Also see Woolf 2022: 294-Woolf states concerning what he considers the highly edited accounts of the early Church, ‘But the story they tell of a single set of teachings communicated and spread by a small corps of Apostles is a pious invention.’

[25] I consider the work of Professor Patricia Rosenmeyer important for understanding the literary trends in letter writing of that time. Of note are her comments on the imaginative letters in the Roman imperial period that was a standard part of the rhetoric syllabus. See Rosenmeyer 2001: 196—97.

[26] Crucifixion, Eucharist type meals, empty tombs and resurrection (Romulus, Castor and Pollux, Asclepius, Herkles, Alexander the Great), ritual anointing and virgin birth; the last theme being a mythological literary ‘symbol’ used to designate divinity and was widespread in the Hellenistic world (Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander). I will note that on Walsh says an inaccurate statement, ‘The story of the Galilean peasant resurrected like Romulus was also timely’ (Walsh 2021: p. 153). Romulus was not resurrected but transported while alive. However, the parallel concept is still there. But parallels within ‘imperial writing practices’ are evidenced by the tradition of imperial figures being ‘raised up’ into the heavens. Different stories of Romulus’ disappearance appear in Plut. 27.

[27] The persecutions under Nero as described by Tacitus have been called into question and doubted by Professor Brent D. Shaw. See Shaw 2015: 73—100; 2018: 231—242.