![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Jewish War: First half of Book 4
Last week: Josephus really hypes Vespasian up! Galilee is also very nice! Discussion of Josephus' prophecy of Vespasian, both in Josephus and in Feuchtwanger's novelization, with detours into Antonia and Caenis.
This week: Internal strife in Jerusalem! Lots of internal strife!
Next week: Last half of book 4.
This week: Internal strife in Jerusalem! Lots of internal strife!
Next week: Last half of book 4.
no subject
Joseph talks about the Romans taking Gamala (eventually) and then talks about Gischala a lot. Definitely Not because he is obsessed with John of Gischala at all. The Gischalan resistance is organized by our old friend John, "a specious rogue of infinite guile" (this translation, I love it), who apparently also has organized bandits? Anyway, they are set on fighting and John, that rogue, escapes from Gischala and makes his way to Jerusalem. Meanwhile, factionalism is rife in Jerusalem. The radical militants basically become bandits, "so that in terms of lawless brutality their victims could see no difference between these compatriots and the Romans" (133). (Moreover, Josephus says more-or-less parenthetically, Jerusalem admits "without scrutiny any fellow Jew" (136), and "it was this very influx which, quite apart from the factional strife, ultimately sank the city: a useless idle mob drained the supplies which would otherwise have been sufficient for the active combatants" (137).)
More bandits come in to join forces with the gangs already in the city, and they kidnap and kill people. It gets to be so bad they actually elect their own high priests! (Me: Is this so bad... yeah, I understand that it's supposed to be the particular families, I get it, but this does hit a bit differently in the modern era. I suppose my church also does not elect anyone -- although in theory it is also not supposed to be particular families -- but D's church does!) They even appoint the high priests by lot. "In reality they were abolishing a more reliable system as part of a ploy to gain absolute power by controlling all appointments to high office" (154). The footnote here says what I was thinking: "It is not clear how this could be achieved if the lot was random." Hmm this brings back the question of how random those lots in the cave really were... :P
So okay, the older party, represented by high priest Ananus (but some other guys too) tries to take on the "Zealots," the guys who are electing their own high priests. John of Gischala, that infinitely guileful person, pretends to be part of Ananus' team but is actually shuttling all the information to the Zealots, except adding in stuff like, Ananus and his guys want to call in Rome! The Zealots call in the Idumaeans to help them. Ananus' party shuts the gates against them.
But wait, Ananus doesn't inspect the guardposts on a crucial night. "This was no laziness on Ananus' part, but Fate's strategy to ensure that he should die, and all his guards with him" (297). Hm. It's interesting to me that Josephus invokes God as the architecture of most things, but Fate here. Anyway... the Zealots sneak the Idumaeans in, who go on to kill a ton of people, including Ananus.
In elegy Josephus says of Ananus, "If Ananus had lived there would either have been a settlement [with Rome]... or, if it had to be war, the Jews would have greatly delated the Roman victory (321). The footnote says, "Josephus' admission that a settlement with Rome was on the cards may seem to endorse the accusations of treachery levelled against Ananus by his enemies earlier in Book 4."
The Zealots and Idumaeans kill a bunch of people, then having trials to kill them a little more decorously. Finally the Idumaeans have enough of this and leave. The Zealots are like, cool, let's keep being The Worst.
Meanwhile, Vespasian is munching popcorn while his enemies do all the work for him.
no subject
This said, and completely admitting for Josephus' bias and the fact he now no longer is describing something he witnessed directly (because he's now a Jewish pow in Vespasian's camp) but hears about reportingly after the fact, the description of the most radical few who first are seen as defenders of liberty then turn out to be despots terrorizing the rest and executing them for not being patriotic enough rings depressingly familiar. For many a society and historical event, up to the present day.
Speaking of this, there is also the mass suicide thing earlier. Assuming Josephus isn't making this up from scratch but may be inflating his numbers, even if not 5000 people killed themselves, it probably was a sizable part of the population, foreshadowing the big mass suicide at the end of Masada, and even taking into account the awful alternatives (either be killed by the Romans in combat, or be captured and enslaved and/or executed by the Romans), mass suicides always freak me out and make me conclude the community making the decision probably wasn't very democratic near the end. Because you can make that decision for yourself - but no one else. And I just can't believe every single person in a mass suicide chose to do this as opposed to being made to by a mixture of despair, peer pressure and/or violence. And that's leaving out the children.
On to a less depressing subject: John of Gischala reacting to the same kind of problem Josephus had - knowing a siege was doomed, wanting to high tail it out of there leaving the people he's in command of behind because they don't agree with that decision - with a different solution, i.e. tricking Titus with the Sabbath ploy and then making off to Jerusalem - really has our narrator grinding his teeth, doesn't it? I'm trying to decide whether it's more or less ruthless than creating a 40 something people lethal match problem. Otoh, Josephus does it at the very end of the siege, while John gets out of there at an earlier stage. Otoh, John then goes off to Jerusalem, i.e. he escapes to fight another way, while Josephus surrenders to the Romans. On the none existant third hand, Josephus couldn't have gone off to Jerusalem or anywhere else anymore at this point.
Ananus and the Romans: I'm assuming that in an occupied country, anyone who has been in a powerful position for years has come to a certain consensus/collaboration with the occupiers. Otherwise he would not have remained in that position. This being so, I'm pretty sure Ananus, choosing between two evils and faced with the fact that with the Zealots in charge, he no longer would have a powerful/incluential decision, would have been likely to contact the Romans to negotiate, yes. So not much spin/slander by John & Co. would have been necessary.
Mind you: given where this is all heading, I can see Josephus' point that Ananus in charge would have been better for Jerusalem...
Though here is a stray thought: if anyone really could have foreseen Nero's death and the Year of the Four Emperors was coming, they might have wondered whether an inner Roman civil war would have been the Jews' big chance. I mean, the last time there was a Roman civil war, it took many years, not just one year. So in theory and not knowing Vespasian could rely on his son Titus concluding the Jewish War while he was elsewhere, there could have been speculation that if he joins the struggle for the throne, he would need his legions backing him up and not in Judea.
But that would have needed actual prophetic gifts, which we don't believe in, right?
One more thing. After Josephus and us have gone one about how hopeless the situation for the Jews was from the get go, it belatedly occured to me that a few centuries later, you have Constantinople withstanding a couple of sieges against some truly hardcore conquering armies. And not so coincidentally, the East Roman self image had gone from seeing themselves as the New Rome to seeing themselves as the New Jerusalem in the first century after the Arabs became Muslims and started conquering. (i.e. the seventh century A.D.; it wasn't until the notorious 1204 Fourth Crusade that Constantinople would get sacked - by a Christian army, no less - and then of course much later and for good by the Turks in the 15th century). Constantinople was able to withstand nearly two years of a siege, and was as a city both larger and more populated than Jerusalem, and like Jerusalem had taken in lots of fleeing refugees before. And as the History of Byzantium reminded me, they very consciously did adopt the Jerusalem parallel in their rethoric. So it is possible for a city to withstand a siege by a superior military force for an enormous amount of time. And sort of win, in that if you're the besieged party, not being destroyed and not surrendering is enougoh to make you look the winner, while the superior military force really has to conquer or otherwise looks like the loser.
Then again, Constantinople in the 7th century AD had a better strategic position than Jerusalem vs Vespasian and then Titus, between the Bosporus and the Theodosian Walls. Also, Greek Fire!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2026-03-23 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)I believe from J's account that the ersatz High Priest is a hereditary priest, but perhaps has not had a priestly education? It does seem as though the Kohen Gadol ought to have been somewhat qualified to do the sacrifices... being a hereditary priest would put you under the obligations of the priesthood (e.g. not to attend most funerals, not to marry a divorcee) but I'm not sure all descendants of priestly clans would have been taught to do sacrifices or conduct blessings. So J's shock is perhaps not just elitism, but also might be really worried about the "blatant impiety" of a man like that wearing the vestments and trying to conduct religious services.
I think you are both absolutely right: Ananus is in charge of the pro-surrender faction but J doesn't want to say this (as this would justify Ananus being killed). But of course the pro-surrender faction is Jerusalem's only hope.
As
An interesting review of the translation (The Classical Review , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , October 2019 , pp. 415 - 419 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X19001318) by David Friedman discusses the "bandits"/"terrorists" who crop up all over; the Greek apparently says "lestes", which Friedman says is used in this era to mean bandits but also "troublemakers" more generally. I remember reading a quite similar article about "latrones" in Latin back in college ("now Barrabas was a robber"; "erat autem Barabbas latro")--- the meaning is anywhere from "Barabbas mostly stole stuff in an apolitical way, but he had a kind of Robin Hood reputation which is why they wanted to free him" to "Barabbas was a violent revolutionary against the Romans, and the crowd preferred his approach to Jesus's mostly non-violent one".
I think you (and Feuchtwanger, as you summarize him) must be correct that Vespasian is in no hurry to give up his legions and thus delays his attack on Jerusalem. Not clear if he already sees himself as a potential emperor (we learn, as I'm sure
no subject
Ahhhh yeah okay I can see how that would be bothersome in a way that's not just elitism, as you say.
the Bosporus means it can't be starved out unless the besiegers have a superior fleet. And the Arabs have to hold their rear area in Anatolia, something the Muslims are not going to manage--- the frontier stabilizes on the Armenian border, just around where the old Persian border was--- until centuries later when the Turks take it over. Vespasian is playing on easy mode: Jerusalem is not just bordering a Roman province, but sandwiched between two of them (Syria and Egypt) so he has no worries about supply lines..
Ah, this really brings home Constantinople's better position, thank you!
the Greek apparently says "lestes", which Friedman says is used in this era to mean bandits but also "troublemakers" more generally. I remember reading a quite similar article about "latrones" in Latin back in college ("now Barrabas was a robber"; "erat autem Barabbas latro")--- the meaning is anywhere from "Barabbas mostly stole stuff in an apolitical way, but he had a kind of Robin Hood reputation which is why they wanted to free him" to "Barabbas was a violent revolutionary against the Romans, and the crowd preferred his approach to Jesus's mostly non-violent one".
Ooooh this is an interesting translation note! I didn't know that about Barabbas either. "Terrorists" did seem like a slightly odd word choice.
no subject
I did know about Vespasian's brother, though he is the guy who always gets cut ouf of what few (compared to the Julio-Claudians) fictoinal representations the Flavians get. (Along with Vespasian's only daughter, sister ot Titus and Domitian, of whom we basically only know she existed, but Vespasian's brother was actually an important factor in how he became Emperor and wasn't a woman, so his not making the cut is somewhat more unusual.) But Vespasian doesn't have to eye the throne at this stage already for not wanting to attack Jerusalem in this year. This is Vespasian's first command of this magnitude, he's clearly physically fit still but in terms of life expectancy counts as an old man already, so (always assuming the decades younger Nero continues reigning) this is likely his last big shot at glory, and once he's taken Jerusalem, it's over. Also, Vespasian is notoriously thrifty, and if he as Cahn says sits back and munches popcorn while the various factions in Jerusalem tear each other apart, and then deals with whoever is left, it's far less expensive than if he tries to take the city now and has to defeat much more people. What's he going to do if he goes back to Rome now, retire to the Sabine hills and hope Nero won't hear about any prophecies?
Your terrorists are our freedom fighters or robbers: fascinating, did not know this about "lestes". Re: Barrabas, though - aren't all four gospels written in Greek as well in the original? Or do you mean "latro" is a term from the Vulgata, i.e. the Latin translation used most often until the Renaissance?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2026-03-24 07:52 pm (UTC)(link)ἐκραύγασαν οὖν πάλιν πάντες, λέγοντες, Μὴ τοῦτον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Βαραββᾶν· ἦν δὲ ὁ Βαραββᾶς λῃστής.
(Wikisource: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC_%CE%99%CF%89%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BD#18:1)
As I conjectured given the similarity in meaning, the Greek does indeed appear to say "lestes".
no subject
no subject
*nods* :/
mass suicides always freak me out and make me conclude the community making the decision probably wasn't very democratic near the end. Because you can make that decision for yourself - but no one else. And I just can't believe every single person in a mass suicide chose to do this as opposed to being made to by a mixture of despair, peer pressure and/or violence. And that's leaving out the children.
Oh ugh, I hadn't thought about that!
John of Gischala reacting to the same kind of problem Josephus had - knowing a siege was doomed, wanting to high tail it out of there leaving the people he's in command of behind because they don't agree with that decision - with a different solution, i.e. tricking Titus with the Sabbath ploy and then making off to Jerusalem - really has our narrator grinding his teeth, doesn't it?
Oh lolololol I also didn't really twig to this, that's hilarious.
This being so, I'm pretty sure Ananus, choosing between two evils and faced with the fact that with the Zealots in charge, he no longer would have a powerful/incluential decision, would have been likely to contact the Romans to negotiate, yes. So not much spin/slander by John & Co. would have been necessary.
Mind you: given where this is all heading, I can see Josephus' point that Ananus in charge would have been better for Jerusalem...
Yeah, I mean, it actually sounds very sensible to me to negotiate with the Romans rather than play everything out to the other inevitable end...
But that would have needed actual prophetic gifts
Or a huge conspiracy? :)
it belatedly occured to me that a few centuries later, you have Constantinople withstanding a couple of sieges against some truly hardcore conquering armies.
Ah, right, that's cool! And also maybe not quite so much internal strife?
no subject
...drumroll....
...icons! And thus was iconoclasm born. And you got some Emperors who were iconoclasts and some who were iconophiles, and each held an eonomic council which declared the previous council illegitimate, and meanwhile the Western Romans (about to be called Catholics but not yet, this is pre-Schism) just went WTF? Who cares about icons or lack of same? Not our Popes!
Constantinople: WE DO!
Back to original Jerusalem: Josephus, you'll note, also keeps saying that either God's will or now in this part Fate must be the explanation for how this war is going to end. Which does beg the question: why is it God's will? So far, I get the impression it's God's will because all the internal strife. (I.e. in our narrator's mind, that is.) Or maybe it's a reverse chicken and egg, i.e. the internal strife is because it's God's will and God is unfathomable. (Of course and depressingly, Christianity eventually came up with the "blood libel" and the whole idea of the eventual fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple being divine punishment for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah etc.)
(BTW, the pre-Christinan Roman default explanation for whenever they get defeated is that it's decadence and foreign influence and they're not as tough and manly as their glorious ancestors. This is such a rethoric staple centuries before the Roman Empire reaches its maximum extension and cultural height - not necessarily the same thing - that it's hilarious, with every generation practically declaring the previous ones to be the true incarnation of Romanitas and themselves as the decadent softies.)
Oh lolololol I also didn't really twig to this, that's hilarious.
Now Feuchtwanger has Justus and not John of Gischala as Josephus' most important rival and frenemy, but he does use John of Gischala a lot, too, and once you've finished with this, you can go back to book 2 of the trilogy which has a scene where John of Gischala gives Joseph his personal review of The Jewish War as a book. :)
no subject
Hee, I did know about the icons! Long ago I read an abridged version of John Julius Norwich -- actually because The Dragon Waiting piqued my interested in Byzantium. Perhaps I should go back and read it again because I've forgotten almost all of it. I know it's not the most accurate thing out there but I remember it being quite entertaining.
So far, I get the impression it's God's will because all the internal strife. (I.e. in our narrator's mind, that is.)
I'm pretty sure it's this -- he brought it up in the prologue, after all, as the reason why all this happened, and
you can go back to book 2 of the trilogy which has a scene where John of Gischala gives Joseph his personal review of The Jewish War as a book. :)
Ahhhhh I will have to reread that again!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2026-03-24 09:59 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
BTW, Feuchtwanger's trilogy tells me that marrying a raped-by-a-Roman woman would have been regarded as shameful for the potential husband in Jewish society. Ditto if she is already married at the time of the rape. And of course, on the Roman side, given the Lucretia legend with its grand "better dead than survive raped" denouement, and the explicit "shame on any woman NOT killing herself after being raped" sidenote, it makes for a pretty clear (and ugly) picture.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2026-03-26 02:15 am (UTC)(link)But what I can find just by searching is Ketubot 27a:
MISHNA: With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped...
GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Avoda Zara 70b): If there is a gentile military unit that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, after the soldiers leave, the open barrels of wine are forbidden and the wine in them may not be drunk, due to suspicion that the gentile soldiers may have poured this wine as a libation for idolatry. The sealed barrels are permitted. However, if the unit entered in wartime, both these and those are permitted because in wartime there is no respite to pour wine for idolatry. One can be certain that the soldiers did not do so because the soldiers were preoccupied with preparations for a potential attack by the enemy. Why, then, is the mishna concerned that perhaps the soldiers laying siege to the city rape the women?
Rav Mari said: To engage in intercourse there is respite; to pour wine for idolatry there is no respite. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Elazar said in the name of Ḥizkiyya: There is a different distinction between the cases. There, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy. In that case, the soldiers, acting as the enforcement body of the monarchy, seek to minimize unnecessary damage to the city and will refrain from ruining the wine and raping the women. Here, the mishna is referring to the siege of a city under the rule of a different monarchy. Therefore, there are no restraints with regard to ruining the wine or raping the women.
The Gemara asks: Even in the siege of a city under the rule of the same monarchy, it is impossible that one of the soldiers did not wander off and rape a woman. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is referring to a case where the sentries see each other and do not allow the soldiers to plunder the city. The Gemara asks: It is impossible that the sentries would not doze a bit, enabling some soldiers to enter and plunder the city. Rabbi Levi said: It is referring to a case where they surround the city with chains, and dogs, and branches [gavza], and geese, as obstacles preventing unauthorized entry.
...
With regard to the ruling in the mishna, Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: If there is a single hideaway there in the city, where the women could hide from the soldiers, it saves all the women married to priests. Due to the uncertainty, the presumption is that each of the women found the hideaway, and therefore they are not forbidden to their husbands.
MISHNA: Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that my wife’s hand did not move from my hand from the time that the gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left, and I know for a fact that she was not defiled. The Sages said to him: A person cannot testify about himself. The legal status of one’s wife is like his own status in this regard. Therefore, your testimony is not accepted, and your wife is forbidden to you.
GEMARA: The tanna taught in the Tosefta: And even so, despite the fact that the Sages ruled his wife forbidden to him because he was a priest, he did not divorce her. He designated a house in his courtyard for her, but did not enter into seclusion with her, and when she would go out of the courtyard she would go out before her sons so that she would not be alone in the courtyard with her husband, and when she would enter the house, she would enter after her sons, for the same reason.
What I take from the passage is this: Kohenim (who cannot marry divorced women or other non-virgins) are more stringently restricted than ordinary Jews. There's evidence in the Talmud elsewhere (Ketubot 40b.7 seems relevant to me) that a woman who is not a virgin is considered less desirable as a bride, but she's not necessarily unmarrigeable in general, nor does her husband have to abandon her if she is raped--- this is only for a Kohen.
The rabbis presume (and they should know) that an invading army has rape on its mind. Rav Mari seems to think the soldiers have time for sexual violence even though they have no time to pray to their gods. There is a presumption that a monarch who intends to rule the city afterwards will try to avoid it being sacked. We've seen the Herodians do this or try to do this repeatedly in the text. The rabbis suggest that a "friendly" army of this sort would use sentries and even guard dogs and other alarm systems to stop the troops from wandering around plundering. The convention that the soldiers get to sack the city is strong enough that if you don't want them to, you are better off camping them outside the walls and having the MPs forcibly restrain them from entering.
Rav Yitzhak has what looks to me like a very customary Talmudic leniency. "If there is a single hideaway", the ruling doesn't apply. I believe it's often the case that the Talmud makes these quite strict legal rulings, debates the fine details and how they relate to the Mishnaic and Biblical authorities, and then at the end you get an escape clause which indicates that in practice the ruling is not to be enforced.
But luckless R. Zekharya ben HaKatzav is still stuck being forbidden from intercourse (or even being alone) with his wife, despite all this! The notes to the Sefaria Talmud say merely that nothing else is known about R. Zekharya, or at least not to the search engine.
no subject
The convention that the soldiers get to sack the city is strong enough that if you don't want them to, you are better off camping them outside the walls and having the MPs forcibly restrain them from entering.
Oooof.
(Also, poor R. Zekharya and his wife, and I would be tempted to say back to the Sages that if my spouse is like myself, then I ought not to be forbidden from myself, but I realize I am Missing the Point.)
I think I remember that Josephus being a Kohen was an issue for his marriages (at least one of whom could not be considered a virgin under this rule), at least in Feuchtwanger --
no subject
"For when the siege of Jotapata was over, and I was among the Romans, I was kept with much care, by means of the great respect that Vespasian showed me. Moreover, at his command, I married a virgin, who was from among the captives of that country yet did she not live with me long, but was divorced, upon my being freed from my bonds, and my going to Alexandria. However, I married another wife at Alexandria, and was thence sent, together with Titus, to the siege of Jerusalem, and was frequently in danger of being put to death; while both the Jews were very desirous to get me under their power, in order to haw me punished. And the Romans also, whenever they were beaten, supposed that it was occasioned by my treachery, and made continual clamors to the emperors, and desired that they would bring me to punishment, as a traitor to them: but Titus Caesar was well acquainted with the uncertain fortune of war, and returned no answer to the soldiers' vehement solicitations against me."
Now, in Feuchtwanger's novel, poor Mara is decidedly not a virgin, because she got raped by Vespasian himself, and him ordering Josephus to marry her is both for Vespasian a joke and a way to get rid of her. This is of course Feuchtwanger's invention and speculation, but what are the chances a war captive was a virgin, as Josephus here to his readers insists she was, especially since it would have been forbidden to him to marry her if she wasn't? And his insistence that Vespasian showed him respect during his time as a pow does conflict with Vespasian ordering him to marry a war captive, so I can see where Feuchtwanger got the idea that this taboo marriage was to Joseph(us) an exercise in humilation when it happened from.
BTW, when Josephus writes the next wife was "a woman from Alexandria", I guess most likely he means a woman from the Jewish community of Alexandria, but as he doesn't say so explicity, LF made her a Greek Alexandrian (who for the marriage to be legal converts to Judaism nominally but inwardly never accepts it and as the marriage breaks down refutes it.
ETA: Upon further thought, the Alexandrian wife may have actually been a non-Jew, because the last wife, the one Feuchtwanger left out and replaced by the re-marriage to Mara, is introduced as a woman from Crete
AND a Jewess from birth, and since he doesn't say that for the Alexandrian wife, chances that she was Greek are pretty high. (Alexandria was a multicultural city, but as a Macedonian foundation the Greeks were the dominating people.)
The exact quote: "...I also received from Vespasian no small quantity of land, as a free gift, in Judea; about which time I divorced my wife also, as not pleased with her behavior, though not till she had been the mother of three children, two of whom are dead, and one whom I named Hyrcanus, is alive. After this I married a wife who had lived at Crete, but a Jewess by birth: a woman she was of eminent parents, and such as were the most illustrious in all the country, and whose character was beyond that of most other women, as her future life did demonstrate. By her I had two sons; the elder's name was Justus, and the next Simonides, who was also named Agrippa. And these were the circumstances of my domestic affairs."
(None of the sons are the ones from Feuchtwanger's novels, partly, I suspect, because real life always offers more characters than you need in an novel, partly because the three sons in the novel are used by Feuchtwanger to say something very specific thematically in line with his "how to exist as a Jew and a world citizen at the same time" question, and partly because dead offspring of an ambitious Jewish father who die at least partly through his ambition are a life long red thread in his novels ever since his one and only own child died.)