![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Jewish War: First half of Book 5
Happy day-after-Easter!
Last week: Eyeliner shows that the Zealot faction is really bad! (No, really!) The Year of the Four Emperors, and those emperors discussed. Nero and his end. Lord Hervey of Frederician salon makes a surprise appearance!
This week: Titus attacks Jerusalem, but the factions have already done a lot of the work for him...
Next week: Rest of book 5!
Last week: Eyeliner shows that the Zealot faction is really bad! (No, really!) The Year of the Four Emperors, and those emperors discussed. Nero and his end. Lord Hervey of Frederician salon makes a surprise appearance!
This week: Titus attacks Jerusalem, but the factions have already done a lot of the work for him...
Next week: Rest of book 5!
no subject
Eleazer secedes from the Zealot party, ostensibly in revulsion at the daily atrocities perpetrated in John's unremitting lust for blood, but in reality he could not bear being junior to a tyrant who came to prominence later than him, and he wanted total control under a despotism of his own. I feel like I'm noticing that Josephus never seems to ascribe good motives to any of the Jews, though often to the Flavians (I suppose I can see why the latter, anyway). His guys seize the inner court of the temple. There's also Simon and John with their own factions, so we've got three "rival gang bosses" (29). (And Josephus breaks his usual practice of not commenting on the action -- which is why I was surprised by that footnote last week wondering why he didn't comment on Vespasian and the prisoners thrown into the Dead Sea -- to say, Oh my poor city, what did you ever suffer from the Romans compared to this? :( (19) )
Titus, meanwhile, has a bunch of disciplined Roman soldiers. The warring factions realize this is a Problem and "forged an unholy alliance" (72) (lol) and go up against the Romans, which would maybe have been effective except that Titus comes to the rescue! He's so great!
Then there's a lull in the external war, which of course is the signal to resurrect factional conflict inside the city (98). John's guys attack Eleazer's guys. I think the upshot is that at the end of that there is just John's faction and Simon's faction.
Some of the Romans are tricked by the Jews (though Titus, natch, is not taken in) and think the Jews will surrender, but they don't and a bunch of them get killed/wounded. Titus is upset! He says he's going to punish the troops involved, but the legions get him to reconsider (but also he realizes that it's not very practical to punish everyone involved).
There is a lot more scene setting -- and Herod gets invoked again -- and also there is a tapestry with colors with "scarlet suggested fire, linen the earth, blue the air, and purple the sea" -- hm, should I understand that whenever I see those colors?
Okay, back to partisan fighting. John and Simon are still going at it. Titus starts attacking with stone-throwers and battering rams and such, at which point the partisans are like, huh, maybe we ought to fight the Romans together. I guess better late than never? Once the Jews are united, they are good fighters, but so are the Romans. Oh, I forgot to mention that Josephus is there with Titus and of course always is very clever about things, like knowing when Castor is trying to trick them.
no subject
This is High Priest Ananus erasure! Also of Herod the Great outside of his family life, and both Herod Agrippas presented to us so far. And Princess Berenice in her plea to the evil Roman governor. And the general population of whom Josephus claims they're just praying for their delivery from the evil terrorists ruling and terrorizing them.
But yeah, I know what you mean. Mind you, it's not just that Josephus depends on his Flavian patrons. Describing Jewish courage in resisting, which he does frequently, is one thing; but saying that the LEADERSof the anti Roman Resistance (once he himself has seen the Roman light) have had good intentions or were noble people would be quite another.
All this said, I don't think, again, he's making any of this up from scratch, i.e. that the truth was that John, Eleazar and the Zealots were completely admirable people who never terrorized anyone and led with the total consent of the rest of the population. There are unfortunately ample examples in history of what siege mentality does, and also, the remaining Resistance leaders are undoubtedly highly religiously motivated and thinking they're in the end game against the forces of darkness, so to speak. Plus the story of the Macabees which must be very much on everyone's minds is not only encouraging martyrdom but in the long term shows the outside Hellenstic power declining and eventually washing their hands of Judea. Sadly for the Jews, the Romans haven't even reached the pinnacle of their own Imperial power yet and thus can't be compared to certain Seleucid kings.
The whole episode where Titus is deserted by some of his soldiers but rallies the troops and puts back courage into them by his heroic example, saving the day basically single-handedly, is a millennia old trope which shows up practically word for word in Ramses II's description of his own deeds at the Battle of Kadish, but the fascinating thing is, neither Josephus nor Titus would have known that. The ability to read hieroglyphs wasn't there anymore by 70 AD, what someone like Josephus knew about Egyptian history (outside of the Torah stories, of course) would have been limited to Herodotus' tales, and I don't think the battle of Kadish made it into Herodotus. (If I'm wrong, I apologize, I've yet to read Herodotus completely, I only know excerpts, and am thus working from osmosis.) I mean, the famous gigantic statues of Ramses were in the Roman era called statues of "Memnon", so I'm reasonably certain, though. Though even outside of Ramses II, feats like this - the Pharao singlehandedly defeating his foes after his troops almost did a runner - showed up in Pharaonic propaganda, millennia before Josephus and Titus lived, and I bet stories like this, even if no longer attached to someone specific, made it across cultures. Though again, it's not necessarily that I think Titus remained in his tent all the time and Josephus is making this up from scratch. He probably was a commander ably to rally the troops in a tight spot, who risked his own person now and then. Also, note this Castor story is the second time Titus gets duped by a Jewish foe (the first time was then John of Gishala did it at an earlier siege) - emphasizing Titus' bravery might be to offset this rather embarrassing fact. (Fool me twice, and all that.)
Josephus describing the second Temple in all its architectural glory has a poignancy beyond his other landscape descriptions, because the Temple is gone, utterly gone other than the Wall of Tears, and already was when he was writing said description (as opposed to the Judean nd Galilean landscape). He's writing about something irrevocably lost here. So no wonder in this book he breaks cover with "oh my poor city".
(BTW, you may or may not recall that the earliest of the gospels, Mark, which probably was written around the time Josephus wrote "The Jewish War", implicitly connects the destruction of Jerusalem in general and the Temple in particular with what happens to Jesus. Which was to have fatal long term consequences in the depiction of the Jews in many Christian writings thereafter.)
My translation doesn't put it like this, because we don't have an exact term like "decimate" in German, but I do wonder whether the punishment Titus is thinking of - which he then backs off from - is this infamous one, i.e. killing every tenth soldier. It's one the Romans rarely used; Crassus did it in the war against Spartacus after the Roman troops had routed a couple of times, and it did the trick in that they were then more afraid of him than of Spartacus and never routed again, but yes, better be very careful when you use it, and definitely not when you don't have a ready supply of new (trained) soldiers at your disposal.
This section also includes something Feuchtwanger also describes, i.e. Josephus sent by Titus to negotiate and being cursed and getting stuff thrown at him for his troubles. Unsurprisingly, but I bet it's still smarting, and one reason why all the leaders within Jerusalem get unrelentingly terrible press from him.
no subject
no subject
Hee! I did think about Herod the Great but decided he didn't count since Josephus clearly didn't know him personally :) Lol about Ananus, so -- okay, Jews are OK when they buckle down to the Romans... (Berenice, too.)
Though even outside of Ramses II, feats like this - the Pharao singlehandedly defeating his foes after his troops almost did a runner - showed up in Pharaonic propaganda, millennia before Josephus and Titus lived, and I bet stories like this, even if no longer attached to someone specific, made it across cultures.
This is fascinating!
Josephus describing the second Temple in all its architectural glory has a poignancy beyond his other landscape descriptions, because the Temple is gone, utterly gone other than the Wall of Tears, and already was when he was writing said description (as opposed to the Judean nd Galilean landscape). He's writing about something irrevocably lost here. So no wonder in this book he breaks cover with "oh my poor city".
Oh, of course -- I obviously should have clued into that (since I did know that), but didn't -- but I did in fact notice that this description was more elegiac than the others. :( <3
(BTW, you may or may not recall that the earliest of the gospels, Mark, which probably was written around the time Josephus wrote "The Jewish War", implicitly connects the destruction of Jerusalem in general and the Temple in particular with what happens to Jesus. Which was to have fatal long term consequences in the depiction of the Jews in many Christian writings thereafter.)
Ah, yes -- I knew that, but did not connect it, thank you.
Unsurprisingly, but I bet it's still smarting, and one reason why all the leaders within Jerusalem get unrelentingly terrible press from him.
Hee.
no subject
I thought so, and I may not have noticed but for the fact that the podcast "The History of Egypt" last year did the Battle of Kadish, and also still is doing Ramses II (well, he had a Louis XIV length reign; shares other qualities with Le Roi Soleils, too). Like I said, though, given the lack of accessability to Ramesid records at the time of Josephus, I'm near 100% certain he could not have known about this particular precedence and styled his description accordingly - hence my theory the trope wandered from the walls of Abu Simbel and the Ramesseum in Egypt into folklore over a millennium and into Josephus' subconscious this way.
I looked up the exact passage in Mark (it's in 13), and it's even more blatantly foreshadowing the events Josephus described than I remembered, so, here it is again:
13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
The reason why I'm quoting this at length isn't just the foreshadowing of the destruction of the Temple but for the "brother will betray brother" and the false messiahs elements. Again, going by the general assumption that Mark and Josephus are writing at roughly the same time, post Jewish War but not too long after it, it's hard to read this not as a reference to the internal strife between various Jewish factions. (And hey, possibly even to Josephus himself if his Vespasian prophecy did indeed not use the term "Emperor" but "Messiah" as Feuchtwanger has it.)
no subject
Matt 24:15 'So when you see standing in the holy place the ‘evil that defiles’ which was communicated through the prophet Daniel (whoever reads this let them think about it carefully), then those living in Judea should run away to the mountains.'
Luke 21:20 'But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by legions of soldiers, you can be sure that the destruction of the city will soon occur.'
Matthew reminds us that the 'abomination' is a quote from Daniel, and Luke quite straightforwardly ignores the 'abomination' and tells us the sign is soldiers.
While I was searching Matthew, btw, I noticed 23:35: 'Consequently you’ll be held accountable for all the blood of the good, poured out on the land—from the blood of Abel who did what was right to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, who you killed between the temple and the altar. '
Apparently Zachariah (the patronymic is not given in every gospel, or even apparently in every MS of Matthew), is sometimes identified with the Zacharia who was executed by the Zealots in our last chapter of J. See here for a detailed discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36360/in-matthew-2335-who-was-zacharias-son-of-barachias
Of course the obvious issue with this is that, if true, it is an anachronism: Matthew has Jesus referring to someone who would not be killed until 40 years afterwards. It strikes me as at least possible that the author of Matthew *intends* to refer to an earlier Zacharia, but substitutes the patronymic of someone of the same name who was scandalously killed in the temple within recent memory.
One of Daniel's passages on the Abomination (probably with reference to a Hellenistic ruler), chapter 11 tells us of a struggle between "the king of the south" and some other kings, successors of a great ruler in Persia (presumably Alexander... I have not referred to a commentator but this seems pretty plain): "And a warrior-king will arise, and he will dominate with great dominion, and do as he wishes. 4 And when he arises, his kingdom will be shattered, and divided according to the four winds of heaven, and not to his descendants, and not according to the strength of his reign, because his kingdom will be uprooted for others besides these."
11:30 And ships of Kittim will come against him, and he will lose heart, and turn, and rage against the holy covenant. And he will act, and turn, and show favor toward those who abandon the holy covenant. 31 And his supporters will stand and defile the sanctuary-fortress, and remove the daily offering, and put there the appalling abomination. 32 And by intrigue he will pervert those who act wickedly against the covenant, while the people who know their god will be strong, and act. 33 And those of the people who are wise will teach many, but they will fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, for some time. 34 And as they fall, they will be aided will a little aid, and many will join themselves to them by intrigues. 35 And among the wise some will fall, for refining and purification and cleansing, until the time of the end, because the appointed time is yet to come.
no subject
Also: kudos to Luke to just being straightforward about it :P But interestingly I Feel like "the evil that defiles" in Mark could be taken (?) to mean the internal strife regarding the temple that Josephus talks about, but Matthew bringing in Daniel seems rather to implicate the "king" (presumably Vespasian or Titus) rather than internal strife?
I also appreciated the commentary on Zacharias, whom I admit I have never thought of before at all.
no subject
no subject
Some of the rabbis seem to have understood a later Simon, Simon bar Kochba, as the messiah after his brief success in the 3rd Roman-Jewish war (in 132)... as I understand it, this is why Rabbi Akiva, one of the Talmud's greatest sages, was martyred by the Romans. So the idea that an anti-Roman leader could be proclaimed as the messiah seems historically plausible.
To digress: Akiva's story as given in the Talmud is really wild. He learned to read at age 40, in order to marry his wife Rachel, who did not want to marry an unlearned man. He then studied for years and finally went back to his home village at night, only to hear his wife saying "I'd be even prouder of him if he studied longer"... so he left again. By the time he finally got back, he was the greatest scholar of his age, but his kids didn't know him. Akiva was so learned that the Talmud tells a legend in which Moses asks God for the opportunity to see one of his classes, hears him explaining some detail of the Torah (I forget what) and asks God if this is really Judaism, because he doesn't understand any of it. God tells him to calm down, and after a while, he hears Akiva answer a question from the audience: "How do you know all this stuff?" "It was revealed to Moses at Sinai."
Anyway, if I had to bet, there were indeed false messiahs all around. But I think Vespasian isn't the messiah. (He's a very naughty boy.) My money's on Simon.
no subject
no subject
That is really a wild story about Akiva!
no subject
no subject
no subject
There is indeed something poignant about the description of the temple and the priestly vestments. The Yom Kippur service has a hyperbolic description of the priest in his vestments, which I link here: https://www.sefaria.org/Machzor_Yom_Kippur_Ashkenaz%2C_Musaf_for_Yom_Kippur%2C_The_Avodah_Service.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en in case you are unfamiliar with it:
How truly glorious was the High Priest as he left the Holy of Holies, peacefully, unharmed.
As the canopy of the heavens stretched out on high, was the appearance of the High Priest.
As the glitter of light emanating from the brilliance of the Chayos [the Four Living Creatures of the celestial chariot], was the appearance of the High Priest.
As the beautiful [blue] thread in the fringes of the four corners of a garment, was the appearance of the High Priest.
...
All this took place when the Temple was on its foundation, and the Holy Sanctuary was on its site, and the High Priest stood and served. His generation saw and rejoiced. Fortunate is the eye that saw all of this. For to mention it makes our souls grieve.
Happy is the eye that saw our Temple amidst the joy of our people; for to mention it makes our souls grieve.
Happy is the eye that saw our exultation, the happiness of our people; for to mention it makes our souls grieve.
...
I was totally wrong that J would mention Jewish theological differences again at this point to explain the fall of Jerusalem. We have no revisited the question of Essenes in any depth at all. So I'm as confused as I ever was by that. I do think you're both right that J avoids crediting any Jewish leader in particular with their most effective tactics, except for one brief moment of praise for Simon bar Giora. The raids on the earthworks and siege engines seem quite similar to those in the earlier chapter, but when J himself was leading them, he gave himself plenty of credit! Here however, they are attacks by "the Jews".
The unflattering story of Titus being duped by Castor seems not only to emphasize Titus's personal bravery, but also serves as an excuse for Titus razing the crowded streets between the second and third wall. He *wanted* to save the city, and therefore the temple, but due to the difficulties of urban warfare in the crowded streets and the continual suicidal treachery of the inhabitants, he had no choice. It's not clear to me from this text alone whether that has any credibility. Certainly at Jotpata, Vespasian and Titus seem to have been fine with utter destruction, but perhaps the central political and religious role of Jerusalem would have made a difference.
no subject
I would totally believe this!
I was in fact unfamiliar with the Yom Kippur service, thank you for sharing it <3
The raids on the earthworks and siege engines seem quite similar to those in the earlier chapter, but when J himself was leading them, he gave himself plenty of credit! Here however, they are attacks by "the Jews".
Ha, yeah, that's true! And I'd forgotten about the Essenes... but yeah, they don't seem to have come up at all. In fact there doesn't seem to be any theological division cited at all. I wonder whether there were some that he just didn't bring up because he felt his Roman audience wouldn't be interested? But then why have that whole digression about the Essenes...
He *wanted* to save the city, and therefore the temple, but due to the difficulties of urban warfare in the crowded streets and the continual suicidal treachery of the inhabitants, he had no choice.
Ooh, that's an interesting point.
no subject
It's possible to argue both ways by precedence. Basically the Carthage versus the Alexandria/Egypt model of Roman conquest of a foe. (In)famously, the Romans utterly destroyed Carthage in the third and final Punic War, and that was not despite but because of his cultural and political significance. Otoh, after Octavian-to-be-Augustus and Agrippa had conquered Egypt, there was no destruction of Cleopatra's capital Alexandria. Granted, Alexandria was a very useful international trade hub and Rome wanted those grain shipments from Egypt to continue, but Alexandria was also the one Egyptian town specifically tied to the Ptolemaic dynasty, and you'd have had other, older Egyptian cities to fall back on to rule your new Roman province from. And Titus is the son of a completely new Emperor, i.e. the Flavians in 70 AD need legitimacy cred. Would it have been more likely to be achieved through complete destruction of Jerusalem (here's what we can do to our enemies!) or through sparing it ("we're like Augustus, magnaminous in victory once our foes are defeated")? Again, I can see either argument.
Though whether Titus intended the destruction of Jerusalem from the beginning (or at least at this point) already or whether he didn't and events unfolded this way despite his original good intentions is a different question from why Josephus is so insistent that he had them. Which I feel is not just flattery of his patron, but very much tied to his self justification - not just for his reading audience but for himself. Because it does make a great difference whether he can tell himself "Titus was well intentioned, and by working for him, I wanted to help saving the Temple and this would have happened if not for, etc." or whether it's a case of "I saved myself by working for the destroyer of the Temple who was always going to do that".
Going from actual sources to fictionalizations for a moment, in Feuchtwanger's trilogy, Titus himself doesn't (let himself) know both whether or not he's going to do it, and then once it had happened why it did. In a way, the narration and (inwwardly, never outwardly) Feuchtwanger's version of Josephus is angrier with him than with the other two Flavians, because they are what they are wholeheartedly and honestly, whereas Titus has it in him to be better, he has a genuine interest in Jewish culture (not just because he's got the hots for Berenice), but not only does he pick his inner barbarian at the key moments instead of his better knowledge, he's then unable to live with the result and keeps rewriting it in his head up to and including his death bed, when he asks Joseph(us) why Berenice left him when he himself sent her away, and then, finally, "why was the Temple destroyed", which completely horrifies and infuriates Joseph(us) (who has his own mental gymnastics going on throughout his life, of course).
Thank you for the Yom Kippur ecerpt! Beautiful and moving.
Lamentations: yes, can see it.
Essenes: this is where we collectively throw up our hands, I suppose. Josephus doing a Victor Hugo? (I.e. the equivalent about the long rambling about the Parisian sewage system midst "Les Miserables"?
no subject
Yeah... I definitely get the impression that Josephus was all about self-justification, just from what we've read so far...
he's then unable to live with the result and keeps rewriting it in his head up to and including his death bed, when he asks Joseph(us) why Berenice left him when he himself sent her away, and then, finally, "why was the Temple destroyed", which completely horrifies and infuriates Joseph(us) (who has his own mental gymnastics going on throughout his life, of course).
Oof, I'd forgotten about Titus' deathbed mental gymnastics, even about Berenice... I'd remembered a little of the Temple ones, and of course Josephus' own mental gymnastics.
no subject
/Not actually doing the reading, just enjoying
no subject
Oh yay I'm extremely pleased you are actually reading my summaries! I wasn't sure anyone would get anything out of them -- since
no subject
I definitely am reading them! :D
no subject