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.