The Jewish War: First half of Book 5

[cahn]

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!

Comments

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I had to look this up, but all 3 of the Synoptics have this passage. Interestingly, they gloss "the abomination" slightly differently from Mark:

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.

[cahn]

This is great, thank you!

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.