We must take care, however, not to place too much value
on their assurances. They only testify to the historical truth
as a whole. In many details, especially where chronology is
concerned, we perceive that want of the true historic mind,
which appears in his remaining works, and for which no
autopsy can compensate. The fact that many have undertaken
to justify all these details (especially v. Eaumer in his Geo-
graphy of Palestine) betrays the lack of a complete view of the
individuality of Josephus. The analogies which he brino-s
forward with much learning in favour of everything strange
and improbable could only hold good if his individuality had
been quite different from what it really was ; if he could be
cleared from the reproach of credulousness, of superstition,
and that love of exaggeration and of obscurity which leads
him to follow not only the great aim of the historian viz.
INTEODUCTION. 61

truth, but at the same time other subordinate ends. That the
description of the temple which Josephus gives in this work, as
well as that in his Antiquities, are in many details confused and
in others undoubtedly exaggerated ; that national vanity and
the peculiarity of his position led him to embellish and beautify
for the glory of his nation — all this has been thoroughly estab-
lished by Robinson in his Travels, part ii. p. 53, etc. But, on
the other hand, we cannot fail to see that we have to do with
a contemporary and perfectly informed historian who on the
whole vifished to tell the truth, and was obliged to tell it.
