When he introduces him on the scene, he describes
him as ''a very knavish and cunning rogue, out-
doing all other rogues, and without his fellow for
wicked practices. He was a ready liar, and yet very
sharp in gaining credit for his fictions. He thought it
a point of virtue to deceive, and would delude even
those nearest to him. He had an aptitude for thiev-
ing,*' and so forth. Whenever tlie historian mentions
the name of his rival, he rattles his box of abusive
epithets until the reader is wearied by the image of the
monster conjured up before him. But, unfortunately
for his credit, Josephus also records John's deeds, and
these reveal him as one who, if at times cruel and in-
triguing, yet lived and died for his country, while his
enemy was thinking of saving himself.
It is not surprising then that John, having eyes only
for the defense of the land, was not blind to the double-
dealing of the priestly governor, who had been sent by
the Romanizing party to organize resistance. The first
event that brought about a collision between them was
the suspicious conduct of Josephus in the matter of

^ The Hebrew name of the fortress was y?n t^3> mean-
ing " clot of cream "; the place was so called because of
the fertility of the soil on which it stands.
