cahn | 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From: (Anonymous)

I think you all have hit on most of the stuff I noticed...

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

selenak says, Constantinople has a better strategic position. So much better... 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... besides, all the local monarchs are lined up to contribute to his campaign. There's no sea coast to blockade, no relief army to preempt, and no winter weather to discomfort his troops.

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

selenak already knew but I did not, that his brother is the City Prefect, which gives him some serious leverage at home and a big military force in the provinces). Maybe he's initially just keeping his options open.

From:

cahn

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.

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.

From:

selenak

I might misremember, but early into the Year of the Four Emperors there is also talk about whether Galba, the first of Nero's successors (who is an old fellow with no bioloogical son) might adopt Titus as a way to secure Vespasian's support and/or legions).

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?

From: (Anonymous)

Yes, that's the Vulgate translation (about which I read the article). I am guessing the Koine Greek has a similar term, but my Latin is better than my Greek, so I lazily didn't bother to check. The verse I quoted was John 18:40, which reads in Greek:
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".

From:

cahn

Huh! I had not realized that the Matthew mention of Barabbas doesn't mention that he's a robber/terrorist/revolutionary (I think), just that he's a "notorious/notable prisoner" (RSV/KJV translation). (It is very on-brand for me that Barabbas brings Matthew to mind for me because I'm more familiar with the Bach St. Matthew Passion than his St. John passion, and the mention of Barabbas in the former sticks in my head because of Bach's rather disturbing harmonization there. I'll have to go back and see what he does in the St. John.)