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 240-444: Herod!
Date: 2026-02-15 10:15 am (UTC)She also claimed descent from the house of David, which Herod could not, which isn't immaterial to both the reason for their marriage and its eventual fate.
When reading all the passages about Antony, it's worth remembering that ancient historians had a problem there. Immediately after his defeat, he was the bad guy in official histiography. But starting with Gaius Caligula, the rest of the Julio-Claudian Emperors weren't just descended from Augustus, they were descended from Antony as well, and so some pro-Antony sources resurfaced. Which of course had to be combined with Augustus praise, but how? Blaming Cleopatra was part of the solution. These are some of the sources Josephus draws on. He has the additional problem that Herod started out as a client of Antony, who was instrumental in making him King, and ended up as a client of Octavian/Augustus, but he doesn't want Herod to look like a complete ungrateful opportunist who switched sides once Antony is falling. So not only is it said that Antony AND Octavian told the Senate that Herod would make a great King, but Herod is excused from not coming to Antony's aid militarily in his final showdown with Octavian by virtue of being tied down with the Arabs militarily, and then we have the "I was a friend to Antony and could be a good one to you!" "You're so awesome as a friend!" exchange with Octavian/Augustus placed after Antony's death. In between, we also get some Cleopatra badmouthing for taking Herod's sandalwood forest and destroying Antony's judgment because he supposedly was so infatuated with her.
Now, a recent historian I've read was also critical of Cleopatra but for the opposite reason: Herod, he argues, managed to keep his kingdom as a Roman client kingdom within his life time instead of it being made into a Roman province by changing sides in time, deserting Antony for Octavian, and it paid off for him. Cleopatra was the lesser monarch in the opinion of this historian for not dumping Antony in time and achieving the same result, thereby ending up as the last monarch of Egypt in the ancient world and getting her kingdom conquered and reduced to a Roman province. I find the comparison interesting but also unfair, because Cleopatra's and Herod's situations were not the same, and not just because Egypt was far more wealthier and strategically important than little Judea (and hence more of a must have, must directly control for Romans). Cleopatra, to make a long argument short so we don't get distracted, could not have allied with Octavian instead of Antony once Octavian's overall victory was on the horizon without sacrificing her oldest son (who among so many other things was her official co-ruler). She had insisted (and there is no reason to doubt it) that Caesarion was (Gaius Julius) Caesar's son throughout his life. Antony had backed her up on this. Octavian's main claim on the formerly Caesarian legions rested on being the adopted son of GJC - the only legitimate true son. As Octavian himself would put it when giving the order to kill Caesarion (and Antony's oldest son by Fulvia): "Too many Caesars." There could only be one.
Speaking of killing relations, it's a rich that Josephus goes on about Cleopatra having killed all her family and naming this as a uniquely evil trait of hers (never mind the Ptolemies offing each other through various generations and the fact the siblings of this generation had been at it when Cleopatra was still a child) in an overall story where he described the Jewish priestly and then royal dynasties doing the very same thing to each other.
Mariamme: did make it into opera. And drama. A lot of drama. Including one by Voltaire. Who, being Voltaire, managed to use the drama for more drama because it was part of a feud with his rival who also wrote a drama about Mariamme, and with Rousseau. More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9rode_et_Mariamne
Byron (as in, the poet, Lord Byron) collaborated with a Jewish composer, Isaac Nathan, in a song "Herod's lament for Mariamne".
Herod building a lot of stuff is what his extra biblical main claim of fame rests on, because all these Herodian buildings include Masada in its final shape, Caesarea as a founded city, and of course, the Second Temple (i.e. the wall of tears remaining in Jerusalem). In terms of this book, I would say he's the first memorable character who emerges. So far, Josephus has presented him mainly in positives, though you may have guessed Mariamne won't be the last death. If you want a short and witty summation of Herod based mainly on his portrayal by Josephus, Extra History did one here.
Re: Paragraphs 240-444: Herod!
Date: 2026-02-16 04:13 am (UTC)but he doesn't want Herod to look like a complete ungrateful opportunist who switched sides once Antony is falling.
I was wondering about that a little! Because that does rather sound like the most economical explanation, but he sure was not saying that out loud.
Cleopatra, to make a long argument short so we don't get distracted
Oooooh. Well when I read Hand of Isis and rereadThrone of Isis I expect to hear the long argument :D :D
rich that Josephus goes on about Cleopatra having killed all her family and naming this as a uniquely evil trait of hers
...yeah.
A lot of drama. Including one by Voltaire. Who, being Voltaire, managed to use the drama for more drama
LOL. VOLTAIRE! Of course he did. And of course he made it into contemporary as well as historical drama!
Byron (as in, the poet, Lord Byron) collaborated with a Jewish composer, Isaac Nathan, in a song "Herod's lament for Mariamne".
Ooh. I couldn't find this song but I did find some of the other poems here. I wonder if the book has the Lament as well.