The Jewish War: First half of Book 1
Feb. 14th, 2026 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnI am super not promising to always have this on Saturday, but yay long weekend!
Last week: I know some of you reading this study Talmud -- Josephus asserts at the very beginning that the "sufferings of the Jews" (presumably, in context of Josephus' writing, Titus destroying the temple, etc. though we won't get there for a while) are their own fault: "no foreign power is to blame." It was pointed out that the Talmud may (?) have its own opinion(s) as to whether the destruction of the Temple and the resulting diaspora was divine punishment? And regardless of the former, may also blame Titus? (I also don't know yet, because we haven't gotten there yet and won't for a while, whether Josephus himself thinks it's divine punishment or just plain old temporal consequences. My vague recollection of Feuchtwanger's Josephus is that he was thinking more of the latter, which is also very much borne out by this week's reading.)
This week: First half of Book 1 (Ch 22 / Par 444):
Okay, I must say the first part of this was a slog for me -- flitting between a lot of people I didn't know. Good thing we have this reading group or I might not have got through it. As it was, I had to take copious notes to even make a stab at writing up a summary (I won't promise I'll do this every week, but I had a little extra time and quite frankly I knew I wouldn't remember who any of these people were next week if I didn't), and I'm going to put them in comments so this post doesn't get super long. At least Josephus felt it was "inappropriate to go into the early history of the Jews," which would have made it really long. Anyway, it got substantially more interesting once Herod showed up!
Next week: Finish book 1.
Last week: I know some of you reading this study Talmud -- Josephus asserts at the very beginning that the "sufferings of the Jews" (presumably, in context of Josephus' writing, Titus destroying the temple, etc. though we won't get there for a while) are their own fault: "no foreign power is to blame." It was pointed out that the Talmud may (?) have its own opinion(s) as to whether the destruction of the Temple and the resulting diaspora was divine punishment? And regardless of the former, may also blame Titus? (I also don't know yet, because we haven't gotten there yet and won't for a while, whether Josephus himself thinks it's divine punishment or just plain old temporal consequences. My vague recollection of Feuchtwanger's Josephus is that he was thinking more of the latter, which is also very much borne out by this week's reading.)
This week: First half of Book 1 (Ch 22 / Par 444):
Okay, I must say the first part of this was a slog for me -- flitting between a lot of people I didn't know. Good thing we have this reading group or I might not have got through it. As it was, I had to take copious notes to even make a stab at writing up a summary (I won't promise I'll do this every week, but I had a little extra time and quite frankly I knew I wouldn't remember who any of these people were next week if I didn't), and I'm going to put them in comments so this post doesn't get super long. At least Josephus felt it was "inappropriate to go into the early history of the Jews," which would have made it really long. Anyway, it got substantially more interesting once Herod showed up!
Next week: Finish book 1.
Re: Paragraphs 121:239: Hyrcanus and Antigonus and Antipater!
Date: 2026-02-15 09:35 am (UTC)Aka Josephus not so subtly making a point to his Roman readers. It did occur to me that likely what he wants to achieve is an image change for the Jews among Romans from "one of many people we defeated" to "the new Carthaginians", i.e. the Great Worthy Opponent Who Only After A Titanic Struggle Submitted".
It occurs to me that the only thing I know about all this is Shakespeare, and would like a crash course in what the Romans thought of Caesar's assassination, please?
Which Romans and when? Because of course that makes a huge difference. Evidently opinion was divided directly after the event, hence years and years of Civil War, though obviously Cassius and Brutus had been kidding themselves if they thought they'd be greated as liberators by universal acclaim. Once Octavian/Augustus emerged as the final victor and started the Principate, he could present himself as a generous victor and blame all the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate and the ca. 3000 dead Senators and Knights on Antony instead of himself as well, though writing too complimentary about Brutus and Cassius could get you side eyed and could end your career under the divine Augustus, too. The next few Emperors did not want to encourage assassinations, especially since assassinations and attempted assassinations, usually by the same senatorial class that produced Brutus & Cassius, happened anyway, so boo, hiss, on the conspirators. Once the Julian-Claudian dynasty was over, Brutus in particular got good PR (especially in Plutarch, which is what Shakespaere mainly drew on), though some remaining criticism, too, but the general consensus among ancient historians comes across as: even if you ascribe to them the best motives and believe they truly wanted to save the Republic, well, they achieved the exact opposite.
One footnote to (Julius) Caesar as liking Hyrcanus and Antipater: Suetonius backs Josephus up in his Caesar biography; remember, he mentions Caesar being a patron of the Jews and thus them mourning for him in particular after his assassination. Suetonius, writing under Hadrian who will turn Jerusalem into rubble, does not mean this as a compliment to Caesar. (It's mentioned as a minus much as Caesar multitasking by reading and replying to letters during gladiator games and having sex with adult men is.)
Re: Paragraphs 121:239: Hyrcanus and Antigonus and Antipater!
Date: 2026-02-16 03:05 am (UTC)Yes, thank you! :D
But really, this was great, thanks.
but the general consensus among ancient historians comes across as: even if you ascribe to them the best motives and believe they truly wanted to save the Republic, well, they achieved the exact opposite.
Because of the years of civil war?
he mentions Caesar being a patron of the Jews and thus them mourning for him in particular after his assassination. Suetonius, writing under Hadrian who will turn Jerusalem into rubble, does not mean this as a compliment to Caesar.
Oh, I like that. The first sentence, that is, not the second (although I do find it funny as well that it falls in the same category as multitasking and sex with adult men)