The Jewish War: Preface

[cahn]

This week: All right! As a preface to Josephus Book Club, I am just reading the preface this week and we will do a bigger chunk starting this next week (see below). The preface is just a few pages long (I'm reading up until what in Oxford is paragraph 30, "All of these contents are set forth in seven books... I shall now begin my narrative as indicated at the start of my summary.")

I'm sure you all will have deeper things to say than I do about this, but wow I am just amused by how Josephus just starts out pulling no punches about how annoying and inferior he thinks the other historians are. (The footnote to The historians of this war fall into two categories... hearsay... or distort the facts namechecks Justus, who featured prominently as a frenemy in Feuchtwanger's Josephus trilogy.) I do like his logic in saying, hey, if you want to make the Romans look good, why make the Jewish side look feeble? Also his logic in saying, hey, actually, it makes more sense to be writing contemporary accounts for which one has eyewitnesses, as opposed to writing about ancient history "as if the ancient historians had failed to give their own accounts sufficient finesse," lol. (Although I guess that is what academic historians do!)

Titus Caesar is also namechecked, lookin' good.

The footnotes also say that historiographical writers generally claimed impartiality, so Josephus talking about his personal feelings of sorrow here is atypical, which I thought was interesting.

In fact, looking over the whole sweep of history, I would say that the sufferings of the Jews have been greater than those of any other nation -- and no foreign power is to blame. Oooooof. I guess that's a good tagline to pique interest in the book, though...

(I'm really glad I read Feuchtwanger's Josephus books first to orient myself, though!)

Next week: We'll start Book 1! selenak advised that we read up to Herod the Great's killing his favorite wife. My Oxford edition has "verse"/paragraph numbers but not chapter numbers as selenak's has, but I think (selenak, please let me know if this is incorrect) in my edition the idea is to read up to paragraph 443/444: Maddened by unbridled jealousy, Herod ordered the immediate execution of them both. Remorse quickly followed rage: his anger subsided, and his love was rekindled. The heat of his desire for her was so intense that he could not believe she was dead...

WELL ALL RIGHT THEN. I can see we have lots of sensationalistic gossip ahead of us!

Comments

[selenak]

Book 1 break: Yes, that where the chapter ends in my edition. (Which is a reprint of a 19th century translation, hence presumably the division in chapters.)

Preface: "My entire competition sucks, mostly because they ignorantly bash the Jews and imagine this makes the Romans look better. They're wrong! Now I would never do any toadying to the Romans (hi, Titus, you're the best, and the destruction of the Temple is totally not your fault!), I'm simply being objective here, and the fact of the matter is that we Jews lost not just because of the Romans but because we were internally divided and the hardcore rebels who fought until the end were fanatic fundamentalist dictators. Also, while I won't retell the Thora when it comes to Jewish history, I will start my story with an overview of our history throughout the Hellenistic and into the Roman Age, and then give you the story of the war. Which I'm more qualified for than anyone else because I was there! More historians should be like me and write about what they know. On to the story, readers!"

The footnotes also say that historiographical writers generally claimed impartiality, so Josephus talking about his personal feelings of sorrow here is atypical, which I thought was interesting.

There were exceptions before him - Sallustius comes to mind, whose history of the Catilinarian Conspiracy certainly describes events within his life time (and are an interesting compare and contrast to Cicero's speeches), but Sallust only at one point that I recall admits to a personal opinion (as opposed to insinuation by narrative), which is when he basically says the coolest guys of his life time were Caesar and Cato the Younger, and in the post conspiracy debates they went mano a mano (verbally speaking) in the Senate. Note he doesn't say "Cicero". But generally speaking, and from what I've read, yes, at this point, it's unusual. Mind you, some of the most famous Roman historians - Tacitus, Suetonius - write AFTER Josephus, though they're already around when he lives and publishes, just as young men not yet famous and publishing themselves. And Tacitus famously claimed the ideal for a historian was to write "without fury or eagerness" (sine ira et studio), only to express his very strong feelings about, say, Nero, or any woman with influence via insinuation instead (i.e. "people claim that...")

About "we suffered worse than anyone, and no foreign power is to blame" - I wish we'd have a Talmud reader among us, because I believe the destruction of the Second Temple and whether or not the ensuing diaspora was divine punishment is debated there? Or maybe I osmosed wrong? Sadly, I haven't read it. Though I'm pretty sure the Talmud, as opposed to Josephus, definitely blames Titus as well. A quote I've read has him dying by divine punishment via a fly in his ear or something like that.

Josephus is of course writing in Rome, with a Flavian Emperor ruling. (I don't think we know for sure whether "The Jewish War" was published within Vespasian's life time or during Titus' two short years in power, but presumably it's one of the two.) Both of whom are/were his patrons. (Domitian won't be, but if "The Jewish War" were published as late as Domitian's reign, presumably he'd have gotten mentioned in it, nevermind him being a teenager in Rome at the time.) There is thus no way he could have written a "Romans go home! Down with Roman Imperialism!" type of history. Note that the Roman historians writing critically about Emperors do that only after said Emperors are dead and their dynasty is finished. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger only have a go at Domitian once Trajan is in power, etc., and of course by then the Julio-Claudians were also fair game. Josephus has some leave way in that blaming governors whom Nero has appointed for their mismanagment of Jewish affairs is doable, it's not like this can be read as a critique of Vespasian, but even if he were to secretly still agree with every action by Team Jewish Revolt, which I don't think he was, I couldn't have written and published that in Rome.

(And then there's his chip on the shoulder about justifying his changing sides beyond getting captured. Which also is harder to do if Titus and/or Vespasian were villains in this story.)

[cahn]

"My entire competition sucks, mostly because they ignorantly bash the Jews and imagine this makes the Romans look better. They're wrong! Now I would never do any toadying to the Romans (hi, Titus, you're the best, and the destruction of the Temple is totally not your fault!), I'm simply being objective here"

:D Oh Josephus.

And Tacitus famously claimed the ideal for a historian was to write "without fury or eagerness" (sine ira et studio), only to express his very strong feelings about, say, Nero, or any woman with influence via insinuation instead (i.e. "people claim that...")

Lol, do you think he knew what he was doing?

(And then there's his chip on the shoulder about justifying his changing sides beyond getting captured. Which also is harder to do if Titus and/or Vespasian were villains in this story.)

It certainly wouldn't make his prophecy about Vespasian look very good, would it?

I wish we'd have a Talmud reader among us

I know there are a couple on my DW list. Perhaps I'll ask more generally when I make the next post.

[selenak]

Oh, Tacitus is far too good a writer to not know what he was doing. To name but one example: most people reading the Annals walk away with the distinct impression that either Tiberius, his mother Livia or both ordered the governor Calpurnius Piso to kill Germanicus (nephew and adopted son of Tiberius, golden boy of the Roman people, very much beloved and thus potential competition; married to Agrippina the Elder and father of both Caligula and Agrippina the Younger). Except Tacitus does not make that direct claim at any point. He just insinuates left, right and centre. Now given he's writing under Trajan, meaning the Julio-Claudians and the three short term Emperors and the Flavians are all dust by now, have zero connection to the reigning Emperor and thus dan be badmouthed however much he wants, there is nothing stoping Tacitus from saying not in a roundabout but in a straightforward way: "Tiberius and/or Livia had Germanicus killed." And yet he doesn't. Why? Presumably because he couldn't find the slightest bit of real evidence for it, and he does want to be taken seriously as a historian. So insinuation it is.

It certainly wouldn't make his prophecy about Vespasian look very good, would it?

Indeed. Presumably before Josephus published this work, most people who had had his name in Rome would have known him as that Jewish war captive who made that prophecy about Vespasian. (That's certainly how Suetonius knows him and describes him in his biography of Vespasian.

[cahn]

Except Tacitus does not make that direct claim at any point. He just insinuates left, right and centre... Why? Presumably because he couldn't find the slightest bit of real evidence for it, and he does want to be taken seriously as a historian. So insinuation it is.

Wow. Okay, Tacitus! Okay, yeah, that's really something.

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I've read some of the Talmud, but I wouldn't call myself a talmudist, and I don't know the passage you're referencing. I'm still waiting for the book to arrive, so... otherwise I don't have much to say yet. Hopefully it'll arrive soon enough for me to engage with Herod the Great and his favorite wife. (Just started Silvia Moreno Garcia's book about Salome, so it'll be an interesting contrast?)

[cahn]

Ha, well, this was just a couple of pages (that selenak sums up above anyway), so you haven't missed much yet! On purpose because I knew you might not have the book yet :)

Ooh. I'm pretty sure Salome shows up (from poking around while I was trying to find the part selenak referenced) though it may be in next week's reading? I also have watching Strauss's opera Salome on my list of things I have promised people I will do, sooooo yeah maybe now is a good time, or at least a time that will lead to interesting contrasts, as you say!

[selenak]

Just pointing out here that the Salome who shows up in connection to Herod the Great is his sister. Salome the daughter of Herodias of John the Baptist fame is two generations later.

[cenozoicsynapsid]

Ah, of course she is. Makes sense when you consider the time periods, doesn't it?

[cahn]

Oh right, now I'm confusing Herod the Great and Herod Antipas, aren't I. (Why does everyone have to be the same name! :) ) Ah, well, thank you for setting me straight as always and I should probably watch Salome-the-daughter-of=Herodias anyway :)

[selenak]

I found the passage I was referring to here:

https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2023/7/24/talmudology-for-tisha-bav-that-gnat-in-the-ear-of-titus

(Before the death by gnat and divine punishment, they also have Titus not only being fully responsible for the destruction of the temple but having sex with a prostitute on a Torah scroll in the holy of holies in it (presumably before it was burned). Good grief. This is full supervillaindom and not even a little believable. I mean, I definitely think Josephus is whitewashing Titus somewhat. (Not completely, because Josephus is writing only a few years after the event, at a time where you have lots of survivors on both sides - i.e. Jewish and Roman - who could have refuted him, even with an eye to the imperial throne in mind, and Josephus very much wanted to be taken seriously as a historian.) But however much personally responsible Titus was for the destruction of the Temple, I very much doubt mid conquering Jerusalem he took the time to have sex with a prostitute on a Torah scroll in the about to be destroyed Temple.)

[zdenka]

Okay, so, the Talmud isn't something you just sit down and read. It's the records of a dense and highly inter-referential discussion taking place over centuries. When people study it, they read a page with commentary per day, and it takes them seven years to get through the cycle. I have had the opportunity to study the Talmud a very little, which made me understand how vastly much more there would be to learn before I could ever claim that I "knew" it in any sense.

The Talmud is also very much not a history book, nor intended as one. Without more context, I wouldn't venture to guess what the tone/intention of the excerpt is. Please don't take a small passage out of context--with no previous experience with the Talmud or its cultural context--and assume you know what it's meant to say. It's bad historical technique and also disrespectful.

I probably have less patience with a innocent stumble like this because it's a Thing nowadays for antisemites to circulate fake/mistranslated/taken-out-of-context quotes from the Talmud to "prove" how evil it is, and I am Very Tired of it.

[cahn]

Okay, thank you for the clarification. I'm sorry that the anti-semite thing is at all a thing. :(

Would it be disrespectful to ask (as the original question was, and what I intended to ask in the next post) what the Talmud has to say (if anything) about who was to blame for the destruction of the Temple? I really didn't expect Josephus to say right up front that it was totally his own people's fault... although... judging on the context I have about him, this is NOT going to be the last time Josephus is going to say something where I'm all WTF?! so there's that.

[zdenka]

No, I don't think that would be disrespectful. And if anyone who knows enough to answer is willing to explain, that's great. I guess ideally I'd just like to avoid having a group of non-Jews discussing the Talmud based on a five-minute google search. :P And I wouldn't necessarily assume that what one rabbi in the Talmud says is representative of everyone, or that it necessarily represents Judaism now.

A few rambling comments from me, Not an Expert, not representing all Jews, "Two Jews, three opinions," yadda yadda.

There's a long tradition in Judaism of saying that calamities are because God is punishing us for our sins. And the Temple's destruction isn't only losing one building, it's tied in with the Exile and the complete destruction of how Judaism was practiced at the time. So if the rabbis are talking about who was to blame for the destruction of the Temple, they're probably approaching it as a theological issue (why do bad things happen?) rather than "who physically set the building on fire." If that makes sense? I don't know enough about Josephus to comment on him.

I recall reading a Talmudic passage that the Temple's fall was because of the sin of sinat chinam, "baseless/senseless hatred," so that might be one concept to look into. (And as usual, there are going to be at least ten different explanations of what that means and how it should be applied in real life.)

Okay, going back to lurking now . . .

[selenak]

I am sorry about the antisemite use of the Talmud and about taking an excerpt out of context myself, and will not quote from the Talmud again.

[zdenka]

It's okay. And I wasn't trying to imply that you should never quote from the Talmud (or that non-Jews shouldn't study the Talmud). It's available to anyone who wants to learn about it. It's just, context is good. :)