The Jewish War: Last half of book 6

[cahn]

Last week:Lament for the destroyed trees and landscape around Jerusalem. A woman eats her own child. More discussion of Titus and whether he wanted to spare the Temple or not. The Carthage and Alexandria precedents for Romans treating defeated opponents. Torching a temple = REALLY BAD LUCK. The timetable of the siege of Jerusalem set by Vespasian's ascent as emperor.

This week: The aftermath of the burning of the temple, and the end of the siege of Jerusalem. Still some pretty awful stuff.

Next week: First half of book 7... isn't this the last book?! OK, selenak, give us a stopping point... :)

Comments

Recap

[cahn]

The temple burns. As the temple burned anything found was looted and anyone caught was killed. A bunch of people die because of a false prophet, who on that very day had proclaimed to the people in the city that God commanded them to go up to the temple, where they would receie the signs of their deliverance. Instead the soldiers set fire to the colonnade of the outer court where all the people who listened to this guy were, and they all died. (I mention this partially because of our discussion of false prophets a couple of weeks ago... this does seem like the sort of thing that could have made it into the Gospels.) Josephus mentions a whole lot of portents which coretold the coming desolation, including the sword-shaped star which stayed fixed over the city, and a comet which remained for a whole year. This feels to me a lot like the star of Jesus' birth??

And as part of all this: what more than anything else incited them to go to war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their holy scriptures, which revealed that at that time someone from their country [Judaea] would become ruler of the world. Well, Josephus says, now we know this meant Vespasian, who was in Judaea when he was proclaimed emperor! Okay... so our footnotes don't give the source of this prophecy -- I immediately thought it meant Micah 5:2 ("But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." (NIV)) although when I went to look it up to write it down here, it doesn't quite fit what Josephus says, so idk, maybe not. But in the case it is (or something similar), Micah 5:2 is, of course, definitely a Messianic prophecy from the Christian viewpoint, and presumably from the Jewish viewpoint too? So from this part it doesn't seem like nearly such a stretch to me that Feuchtwanger has Josephus proclaim him Messiah (as it did from some of the previous passages we read).

The rebels now want to parley. Titus speechifies. We have a footnote to revealed your true nature when a more serious illness broke out that says, "Titus seems to be asserting that the Jewish revolt began only after the death of Nero... the link is not chronologically justified, but it reflects the desire of the Flavian regime to connect the destruction of Jerusalem to Vespasian's rise to power in Rome." Anyway, he says to surrender and he won't kill them.

They say they have sworn not to accept any terms from him, but ask for a safe exit after which they'll move to the desert. I guess the difference between these is that in Titus' deal they would be subject to become the Romans' slaves? Anyway, Titus does not like their effrontery and now he's not going to spare anyone, and gives his troops permission to burn and sack the city.

The Romans flush the "terrorists" out of the Lower City and burn it. Josephus asks the insurgents to spare what is left of the city (presumably by surrendering, although Titus has already said he's not going to spare anyone any more, though later we learn he changes his mind...) but none of them are listening to him. The Upper City is high enough that ramps are needed to attack it. While the Romans are making those, a bunch of people desert (Simon tries to kill them before they desert, but only gets relatively few). Titus doesn't actually kill them.

The Romans break through part of the wall. The warlords, who were in the towers (the towers Herod had built that have been mentioned before), panic and come down from the (very strong) towers and the Romans conquer the towers and the walls. They then run wild in the city, killing more.

Josephus adds a note that many of the people who had been in the city had not been natives, but had been visiting for Passover. (I think I remember this from Feuctwanger too.) John is found starving in the sewers with his brothers and sentenced to life imprisonment; Simon gives himself up (apparently we will learn more about this in the next chapter) and kept for execution. So ended the siege of Jerusalem.

Re: Recap

[selenak]

Great point about the various omina like the comet and the sword-shaped star. Though I don’t recall the star the Three Wise Men are following in the gospels being so specifically described - it gets presented like this in art, of course, and now I wonder whether this is because those early monks who first made drawings have read Josephus. I also dimly recall from school that there is the theory that it was Halley’s Comet. In any case, it is fascinating to have this two source confirmation there were some astronomical phenomena observed causing long term speculation over the next few decades. (Since the usual Christian timeline, based on Pontius Pilatus named as governor, is that Jesus was crucified under Tiberius, while we’re now many an Emperor and decade later.

The phrasing about the prophecy and the common Jewish interpretation plus the conclusion that no, it clearly meant Vespasian is almost identical to how Suetonius phrases it in his Vespasian biography, and since Josephus writes before Suetonius, I assume it’s (additional) confirmation Suetonius must have read “The Jewish War” as part of his research. Incidentally, if such a prophecy really was commonly believed pre Jewish War, it is indeed believable that Josephus, talking for his life after surrendering to Vespasian, should hit on it.

Now, on to my own impressions: it continues to be brutal, no matter how often Josephus repeats that Titus is a merciful guy at heart. Among many things, his “now that the Temple is burned, what is the point of you anyway?” Statement to the priests whom he has then executed are a case in point. Also, we get some numbers in this part: 40 000 Jews are let go by Titus without further negative consequences. 1.100 000 people died during the siege. 11.000 then die of starvation post imprisonment because either their guards don’t feed them or they can’t stomach the food after such a lengthy period of starvation. And overall, for the entire campaign, a staggering 97 000 are taken prisoner, who minus the 40 000 freed are sent either to the mines to work (and that’s brutal work, an almost sure death sentence after a few years at best) or into the arena for the games (i.e. death by beast or gladiator), with the most attractive ones destined to be presented at the triumph first. That’s Roman callousness in its most blatant form. Reminder: the games in question where the ones the Colluseum - or the “Flavian Theatre”, as it was actually called at the time - was inaugurated with once it had been finished (which took some years; Suetonius mentions the lengthy games as a plus in his Titus biography, meaning these Jewish captives, minus the ones destined for provincial games not in Rome, I guess, had to wait for years (i.e. the entirety of Vespasian’s reign) to get slaughtered in the arena. It’s just awful on every level.

(Feuchtwanger uses both the Triumph at the end of book 1 and the games in the last third of book 2 in his trilogy.)

Josephus mentions that Titus freed the prisoners whom John, Simon and their followers incarcerated; I am intrigued that he doesn’t tell us whether or not these included his father (whom he earlier mentions getting locked up by John & Co.). You’d think he’d tell us both if Matthias didn’t make it this far or if he’d survived and they were reunited, but no, zilch. Pure speculation: his father did survive, but the reunion wasn’t a happy one, Josephus got cursed by his Dad, and that’s why he can’t bring himself to write about it.

Next week: Yes, book 7 is the last one (we’re still due the siege of Masada, after all). We could read it completely, but if you do want a division, I would suggest interrupting at: “The purple drapes that used to be in front of the Holy of Holies and the Jewish Law, on the other hand, (Vespasian) carefully kept at his residence”.

One more historical footnote: Titus being hailed Imperator by his soldiers is a reminder that the term originally referred to successful generals under specific conditions (i.e. just winning a run of the mill battle won’t do it), and while it will end up being used synonymous with “Emperor” later on, we’re not quite there yet. (Presumably because none of the Julio-Claudians after Tiberius were in fact great and active generals - Caligula made a mockery of it with his “battle against Neptune”, Claudius invaded Britain but not in the sense of personally generalling there, he sent others to do it for him, and Nero didn’t go on campaign, either -, and Vespasian’s immediate predecessors in the Year of the Four Emperors were too briefly in power to influence language.)

Re: Recap

[cenozoicsynapsid]

Yes, Micah 5:2 and its relatives are messianic prophecies from the Jewish point of view too. And I agree: although I'm not entirely sold on the theory that J proclaimed Vespasian the messiah while Nero was still alive, this is the strongest piece of textual evidence for it so far. It certainly appears that Vespasian's imperial propaganda wanted to associate him with messianic prophecy (in a kind of generic "various omens of greatness" way aimed mainly at a Roman audience).

Re: Recap

[cenozoicsynapsid]

The idea of a customary law of war protecting prisoners from the enemy army is, I believe, a creation of the early modern period. I forget which wars--- the Italian wars or the Thirty Years or something like that--- but one involving professional armies and lots of side-swapping, in which the various combatant states realized that if they were allowed to bleed each other to death, the cost of the war would exceed the territorial stakes by too great an amount. (Arguably, what they should have realized was that this meant the entire war was a stupid idea--- certainly true for both the conflicts I mentioned.)

Anyway, up through the Middle Ages, I believe prisoners were generally a form of loot, to be exchanged for ransom money or sold as slaves. The Roman army traveled with slave merchants who could convert such captives into hard cash, which would be one way the victorious troops would be rewarded at the end of the campaign (alongside Titus's actual payments from the state coffers, his promotion ceremonies, and so forth). In the Middle Ages, the soldiers are Christians and seem to have developed some conventions of not killing each other out of hand, but they're still absolutely going to cash in.

As a far-distant comparison, Shakespeare's Henry V (act 4) orders his soldiers to kill their prisoners so they will be unencumbered when the French counterattack. Fluellen, the comic Welshman, says this is "expressly against the law of arms... arrant knavery," but it clearly happens anyway. Because it's Shakespeare, critics seem to argue over whether this is an effort to introduce some complexity to an otherwise hagiographic portrait of the Good King, or it's meant to show Henry is a hard man who can make the tough decisions that lead to victory. (There's a long discussion of medieval laws of war and critical readings of this scene in this theatrical review piece: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/06/17/take-no-pris0ners). But certainly Shakespeare can't mean it as the kind of outright damning accusation it would be against a modern general--- if we saw Patton or Eisenhower doing this in a WWII movie, it would be read as making him the villain.

Re: Recap

[cahn]

Yeah, I don't think the star is described as sword-shaped anywhere, but I was thinking of Matt 2:9: After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. (NIV) Of course, the place where it stopped was described as Bethlehem, not Jerusalem...

it continues to be brutal, no matter how often Josephus repeats that Titus is a merciful guy at heart.

Yeah :/ So our edition seems to have a note every time Josephus has a number that it's not to be trusted (I don't actually recall if it says that here) but it's still got to have been really bad even if his numbers aren't right.

Pure speculation: his father did survive, but the reunion wasn’t a happy one, Josephus got cursed by his Dad, and that’s why he can’t bring himself to write about it.

Aw, that would be sad! But sounds reasonable. Does his autobiography say anything?

Ah, thanks for the note on Imperator! Our edition talked about this a bit but not in the detail you did.

Re: Recap

[cahn]

Fair, I'm not necessarily sold on it either! But yeah.

Re: Recap

[cahn]

(Arguably, what they should have realized was that this meant the entire war was a stupid idea--- certainly true for both the conflicts I mentioned.)

Hee. But ah, I hadn't realized it was so modern an invention.

Anyway, up through the Middle Ages, I believe prisoners were generally a form of loot, to be exchanged for ransom money or sold as slaves.

There's that awful statement, I forget exactly, but something about how there were so many prisoners that it crashed the market for slaves... :/

In the Middle Ages, the soldiers are Christians and seem to have developed some conventions of not killing each other out of hand, but they're still absolutely going to cash in.

Ha.

But certainly Shakespeare can't mean it as the kind of outright damning accusation it would be against a modern general--- if we saw Patton or Eisenhower doing this in a WWII movie, it would be read as making him the villain.

I see your point!

Re: Recap

[cenozoicsynapsid]

A comet isn't a terrible option for the Star of Bethlehem; the University of Wikipedia links to this article http://www.observadores-cometas.com/Star_of_Bethlehem/English/Chinese.htm which has a lot of details on potential observations of comets or novae of the period. If the "star" were a comet, it would likely have had a visible tail, which perhaps the Gospels simply do not bother to describe. There may have been more than one comet. Halley's, specifically, was visible in 12 BC, and "not a particularly spectacular apparition" in the Chinese sources. There was likely another "bushy star" in 5 BC.

I believe the scholarly consensus (back in the dark ages when I took this class) is that the tradition of Jesus's birth in Bethlehem is entirely specious and that he was likely born in Nazareth. The Gospels really want him to be born in Bethlehem because (as you pointed out wrt. Micah 5:2) it is the hometown of King David, and therefore the prophesied home of the anointed heir of David (literally what 'Messiah' means). (So, Matthew has a whole genealogy of his descent from David, Luke says he's descended from David and doesn't say how, and John straight-out says (7:41-2) "But others said, “Is the Messiah supposed to come from Galilee? Doesn’t scripture say that the Messiah is from the line of David, and from David’s village of Bethlehem?")

Anyway, we've all seen a comet, I think, and the idea that it "stops" at some particular place in the countryside is ridiculous. They may point in particular directions in the sky, but unless you're Arthur Dent, an astronomical object is not a van and it doesn't pull over for a rest every so often.