Flavius Josephus (–0100)

Josephus’ account of a war marked by treachery and atrocity is a superbly detailed and evocative record of the Jewish rebellion against Rome between AD 66 and 70. Originally a rebel leader, Josephus changed sides after he was captured to become a Rome-appointed negotiator, and so was uniquely placed to observe these turbulent events, from the siege of Jerusalem to the final heroic resistance and mass suicides at Masada. His account provides much of what we know about the history of the show more Jews under Roman rule, with vivid portraits of such key figures as the Emperor Vespasian and Herod the Great. Often self-justifying and divided in its loyalties, The Jewish War nevertheless remains one of the most immediate accounts of war, its heroism and its horrors, ever written. show less

An intimidatingly long book that I enjoyed very much, once I had worked out which parts I could skip and skim.

In the first half, which runs from the creation of the universe to the Exile, Josephus takes the narrative parts of the Torah and the Former Prophets and retells them in such a way as to remove all the subtlety and depth. It’s stultifyingly dull. But all is not quite as it seems. In his account of Moses, for example, where we would expect to read an account of the murder of the show more Egyptian and Moses’ flight into Midian, Josephus tells us how Moses was appointed General of the Egyptian forces and invaded Ethiopia. This accounts for his Ethiopian wife. He then flees to Midian to escape the jealousy of the other Egyptian generals. Yet Josephus stresses multiple times throughout the whole work that he is simply recounting what he has read in the Jewish sacred books. Apparently there is a medieval Jewish text that recounts a very similar story of Moses. Did such a text exist at the time, or has he taken the story from an oral tradition? Was this alternative story widely believed at the time? If it existed as a text was it considered canon? Personally I’m not convinced that Josephus is entirely trustworthy. I think he may have been a bit of a scoundrel. He wrote this book in Greek for Hellenised peoples and, by extension, educated Romans. I think his deviation in the story is politically motivated. Thinking it might make a bad impression if the founder of Judaism made himself a murderer on account of a slave, I believe Josephus has cleaned things up and put a bit of spin on the story. There are quite a few instances of this sort of thing in the book and there’s probably a thesis or two to be made out of them if anyone can bear to trawl through. But I pity the person who undertakes it because these points of interest are few and far between and on the whole this first half is so boring it made me want to die. I skipped and skimmed through most of it. If you want to know the story, read the Old Testament where it’s told with infinitely more brevity and wit.

The second half of the book, from the Exile to the 60s AD is very different and really fascinating. Again, not everything Josephus says is true. Take, for instance, his account of Alexander’s deferential attitude to the Jews when he conquers Jerusalem and his reverence when the priests show how his coming was foretold in the Book of Daniel. An incredible story – literally – as Daniel wasn’t written until 164BC. Obviously, Josephus has a political agenda here. Following this there is a long political/military history of a Hellenising world. You get a real idea of what it would be like to live at the confluence of three major empires, all jostling for power in the region. Total carnage. It can get quite confusing as often the kings in a dynasty alternate between only two names and the accounts of each are brief. I wouldn’t want to lengthen this section but I could have done with more information on Queen Alexandra, who seems very interesting. Over all is the lengthening shadow of Rome and their attack, when it comes, is shockingly quick. You might note how Pompey’s desecration of the Temple is downplayed. The Roman’s bring the aqueduct, and peace. And let’s be honest, they’re the only ones who could in a place like that. They might bring peace, but they also bring Herod. Jopsephus’s account of Herod is detailed, exciting and at times really disturbing. I used to work with people who suffered from mental ill health and know a bit about the subject. Josephus is obviously biased and says as much himself, but I’m inclined to largely trust his account because even though my concept of poor mental health differs greatly from the concepts of the ancient world I could still clearly identify a number of the conditions with which Herod suffered. I understand there is a recent biography by a psychiatrist which analyses Herod using psycho-analytical theory. I’m going to track drown a copy.

So, very much a game of two halves and for my star rating I’ve taken the average. Certainly worth popping your nose in and taking a look even if you don’t read the whole thing. And it’s not without humour. At XIII:375-6 Josephus describes the later career of some petty warlord:

“From thence he fled to Jerusalem, where, on account of ill-success, the nation insulted him, and he fought against them for six years, and slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them.-And when he desired that they would desist from their ill-will to him, they hated him so much the more, on account of what had already happened; and when he had asked them what he ought to do? they all cried out, that ‘he ought to kill himself.’” show less

Many of the ancient historians are absolute musts. I wasn't much interested in a Roman-Jew's account of Romanised Judea, but I found it in a 2nd hand shop, a fabulous folio edition in pristine condition so of course I made love to it on the bookshop floor and then ran home screaming joy.

The reward was unexpected.

If you've seen "I, Claudius" (BBC) or read the book (Robert Graves), then there's your comparison; Life of Herod reads like 'I, Herod' in that it too is a culminating tangle of show more Sopranos-like family intrigues.

"Friends, I'm hitting the road but if anything happens to me, don't forget to put my beloved wife and mother in law to the sword. Oh and don't tell me wife I left you these instructions, she'll be really mad..."

There's nothing much about battles, details wise, but enough about Mark Antony, Cleopatra (who comes on to Herod at one point, probably because he had an appendage and a pulse. And power). Also Agrippa, the Caesars and of course, all kinds of zealots at cross purposes. Ancient history is old school fun. show less

The Jewish War started strong and I wondered at first if it might hold a candle to Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. It doesn't in the end. Much of it comes across as a piece of special pleading. Josephus wrote the book during a time of growing hostility under Roman Emperor Domitian (reigned 81-96 CE) toward those of the Jewish faith. The Jews had long had an official exemption from participation in the state rites, yet the increasingly tyrannical Domitian firmly believed in the show more traditional Roman religion, and personally saw to it that ancient customs and morals were observed throughout his reign as a means of justifying the divine nature of Flavian rule. Josephus's friends and protectors, the Flavian emperors Vespasian and Titus, were dead by this time. Moreover, Josephus was writing against a work by Justin of Tiberias that portrayed him as an instigator of the revolt in Galilee. So The Jewish War is very much Josephus' apologia. He loses no opportunity to excoriate the character of his fellow Jews, though he grudgingly admires their fighting ability, or to praise the valor, insight, patience, fair play, discipline, and training of the Romans. All the Jews by contrast are murderous banditti who pollute their own sanctuary, and turn on each other in a heinous fratricidal civil war that precedes the arrival of the Romans. The Jewish leaders--John, Simon, the Zealots, the Idumeans--are the scum of the earth. Josephus often uses that very phrase. They, he says, possess no conscience or moral bearing. It all gets to be a bit much in the end. Though the book lacks crucial balance I nevertheless recommend it for two reasons: (1) its uniqueness as a document; and (2) it's detailed and vivid depictions of ancient Judea. Nothing I've read has ever provided me with such a detailed look at both ancient Jerusalem and the broader landscape of Judea. show less