Titus, Josephus and the Torching of the Temple

[Robert Vermaat]

Good for you! This is the place for the military stuff.

[tlclark]

Dan,

I would have to counter your point on Evangelicals knowing the context of Revelation. Most do know the context but they believe in prefiguration. Much like the events of the OT prefigured Christ, they believe that the trials of the Early church and its persecutions prefigure the last days. I can say this because this is what an Evangelical NT. teacher told me.

That being said, love the rest of the posts and welcome aboard!!
I love your point about the destruction of the Temple transforming christianity from a Jewish into a Mediterranean faith.

Travis

[Narukami]

Indeed, welcome to you Dan.

I think you will find this to me the most informative site on matters pertaining to Ancient Rome and her Army.

As to the destruction of the Temple -- yes it was a critical event in the history and development of Judaism and Christianity.

However, I do think that the Jewish Revolt / Jewish War was more than a civil war, and was relatively wide spread among the populace.

This idea comes from Neil Faulkner in his book Apocalypse: The Great Jewish Revolt.

If we accept the general outlines of Faulkner's thesis then religion was an important factor as a cause, but so too were the economics of the 1st century.

For me the decade of the 60's was one of the most important in the history of the early Empire -- a true nexus point in history.

Once again Dan welcome to the site -- it's good to have you on board.

Narukami

[sicarii sam]

I ve read Faulkners book, Twice LOL. I enjoyed it so much. He really took the disparate matters relating to the jewish revolt and made them cohesive. If a person is interested, he might read faulkner along with josephus. Unless you are familiar with ancient history, reading josephus would be too much for the average mortal.

I guess what I meant at the point of the siege of jerusalem, the real warefare going on in the city was a civil war. Roving bandits and stuff. sure it was widespread. But youll notice that Vespasian just waits around for a year or so letting them kill eachother off.

I think the Revolt is so mulitlayerd that it would be safe to call it a rebellion, a civil war, a Mogadishu, whatever.

End of the day, the good Romans prevailed. We might also be thankful to christianity for preserving the writings of josephus, without them it probably would have never made it far as the jews hated him and the romans considered the revolt/jews not worthy of remembering.

Now, I have to go and kill some evil barbarians. Im sharpening up the gladius right now.

Also without debating any type of modern religious thingy, I might like to respond to some of the stuff above in the ancient christian context. Christianity obviously affected rome and the armies, and in this post it might be valid to look at it a bit. gtg right now. Dan

[sicarii sam]

at the moderaters request I wont address doctrinal interps over what I said. I realize that might be inflammatory looking at it again.

you can see all through the NT that a schism between gentile and jew and whether one had to be circumcised and essentially jewish proselytite to be a christian. Paul denied this.

However, at the root of christianity was the jerusalem church. They still centered around the temple and was there for considered a jewish offshoot expecially as most early converts were jews. the rift began to grow in the 50's and 60's. Once the temple was destroyed, it caused a diaspora for christians and hews alike as neither were permitted in the temple area or jerusalem which was renamed aelia capitolina fortified with a roman garrison. parts of the Fretensis. martial law.

By this happening, judaism no longer had a straglehold or base in jerusalem and shifted to rome where christianity became a faith open to greek barbarian roman and anyone. the temple gone to me is the pivotal war/ event of western civiliation.

I have a BA in ancient history and did my senior thesis on the war.
I read the NT in its historical context at all times. Therefore, when I read anything i ask who was reading it and what would they have understood it to mean. I wasnt referring above to Revelation although its part of it. Im looking at the olivet discourse. Especially the veiled statement by jesus, wherever the dead carcass is , there the eagles will gather.

further reading Eusebius, it was widely understood that the destruction of jerusalem, Titus toting off their goods, the arch of titus being situated in the jewish quarter of rome was a fulfillmetn of those words. There is much more related to christianity and roman soldiers that have provided me 7 years of study. i love roman military stuff and these two subjects, early christianity, the siege of jerusalem, the battle tactics of vespasian and his more reckeless son titus are beyond fasinating to me.

As far as learning about the battle tactics and movements of roman troops, it ranks as high as Caesars Gallic commentaries in its usefullness.

Again, i will not relate this to anything modern but for those interested , it is an angle that might aid in understanding this vortex of Roman Power, the beginning of western christianity.

Faulkner in his book definately does a cohesive job of understanding the religious problems that helped foment the war.

We have little ancient christianity knowledge of the final half of the first century. Josephus in my mind was a bit of sycophant but if you get past that all, He tells us alot about roman military, even naming names of soldiers and for me is the most abiding interest of mine regarding Roman foreign policy as well as the religious climate of the day. amazon has some cheap copies of this book and for any roman military buff, he does a good bit of talking about the roman strategy. I think that part is 'just the facts'. this of course is the side josephus witnessed after the fall of jotopata.

Regards. Dan Tharp aka sicarii sam ancient distant relative of yosemite sam.

[sicarii sam]

sorry for the typos. I can actually read and write but no arithmetic. Centurions said I didnt need it.

[sicarii sam]

Ive been frequenting this board since its first days. I just have only recently decided to post due to my insatiable interest in the Roman Military. Dont know if I could become a reenactor but sounds like fun. The lady Jenny who first started with the board even sent me some out of date articles for free. for the love of all things Roman !!!!!!

[Narukami]

Sicarii Sam,

There is another book you might be interested in (though it would not surprise me that you have already read it) that examines Rome and its dealings with several religions in particularly the Christians and the Jews.

God Against The Gods by Jonathan Kirsch 2004 ISBN: 0-670-03286-7

On page 62 Kirsch talks about the Romans and their all embracing polytheism:


The Romans who sought the blessings of the God of Israel meant only to pay their respects to yet another deity whom they had encountered among the colorful and diverse peoples they ruled. Isis of the Egyptians, the Great Mother of Syria, and Yahweh of the Jews were all regarded with both curiosity and a certain measure of awe and fear, and they wanted to make sure to worship to all gods -- a practice that the historian Robin Lane Fox describes as 'spiritual over-insurance.'


Kirsch's comments on Julian the Apostate and what might have been had he lived and ruled longer are quite interesting.

If you have not read this book I think you will find it of some interest.

Narukami

[sicarii sam]

Thanks for the reference. I have not read it but I have read elsewhere that when the army conquered and area they sacrificed to that god for 'insurance'. Superstitious lot ! Although if I were a soldier facing down barbarians and revolutionaries I would want some insurance too . Thanks.

[tlclark]

But youll notice that Vespasian just waits around for a year or so letting them kill eachother off.

Well actually he stalls after the northern campaign because of civil war in Rome, not Judea. The revolt in the south was hardly to their liking. In the south the Sanhedrin was largely hellenized and in the pocket of Rome. Had the Galilean zealots not killed them off, a deal might have been brokered, as had been brokered many times before. I think that the zealots taking Jerusalem and killing the southern leadership was definitely not to Vespasians liking. At any rate he had to stop to secure the loyalty of troops in Syria and elsewhere. He had to be sure he wasn't going to get stabbed in the back while conducting a campaign. The evidence that they had no desire to go into Jerusalem is demonstrated by the fact that they began the campaign in the north where the most fervent opposition lied. I think it's something of a fluke that the zealots headed south and took over. I really think they expected it to be over after crushing the north.

I think the Revolt is so mulitlayerd that it would be safe to call it a rebellion, a civil war, a Mogadishu, whatever.

Actually Josephus gives only two camps, John's, Simon's and portrays the people as caught between the two. For most of the Roman siege however, the rebels call a truce amongst themselves and at the end mounted a serious defense. The in-fighting however did do one damaging thing, it depleted all the food reserves. Still, Simon had enough to hang on in the subterranean caverns for weeks after the fall of the Temple!

Travis

[sicarii sam]

Yes, one of the reasons vespasian held out is because of the emperors fighting over who was going to be next big kahuna. ( I dont think Id want the job, too many of them got murdered hehe ) Id have to look up the passage, but Vespasian (or josephus interpolating) is recorded as saying something about the best siege was to let them starve and not to fight at all. Brain over blood type thing. ( Ill try and drag up the exact reference)

The in between time while the factions were killing each other was used to secure all the odds an ends in the rest of the area. It sounds rather than a proper civil war it was a stone here and a spear there skirmish/standoff. But I guess I might call it that in the sense that they fought eachother when supposedly they were trying to cast off the Roman 'oppression'. So it all was working together and obviously helped wear down the town before going thru the walls.

Its curious to me as to the holding pattern Vespasian is in. All of the motives behind all of the decision making processes I think will be forever clouded by Josephus crafting his patrons into what is best to keep him in good favor.

Vespaisan is my favorite emperor for a number of reasons. Im not even convinced he wanted to be emperor.

This issue of the 60's in rome and palestine are so deep and multi layered, you literally could specialize in it like Steve Mason has done and make an academic career.

Ive seen faulkner use a marxist model for breaking things down and others who have used different methods. Im constantly amazed how two people can read the same material and arrive at so many different conclusions. But thats the fun part of history. Were like bad detectives, all we have are suspects and theories LOL.

I think Josephus is still a very underrated source of information on the roman army, provincial politics etc.

Youll have to forgive me, Im well acquainted with the factions and how josephus goes on and on about how they destroyed themselves with the food, infighting and such. It took me a couple reads of JW to get all the factions straight. I tend to generalize , when I know its complicated.

There is a good website that puts the war in chronological order with all the parties and factions. Type Josephus Home Page into google and I think youll find it. Nice to see other people interested in the same subject.

[Tarbicus]

There is a good website that puts the war in chronological order with all the parties and factions. Type Josephus Home Page into google and I think youll find it. Nice to see other people interested in the same subject.

I assume it's this:
[url:3ccjxvbx]http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/warChronologyIntro.htm[/url]

[sicarii sam]

yes thats it ! thanks. Its funny, a while ago I was emailing back and forth with the owner of the site about this very question. It really jumps out at you in the narrative. Titus, .......Not.....wanting.......to.......destroy......the......temple......HMMMMMM.

Ever wonder what it would be like to talk with josephus ? I think most of us would slap him upside his head lol.

[sicarii sam]

also tlclark. You said something about securing the loyalty of the syrians. Do you mean the legions ? or the auxillaries or the people jumping in on a chance to sack jerusalem and snuff out the jews. The more I read JW, the more of a vivid picture I get of this wild melee. Im a history nerd so its like reading a great novel for me.

[tlclark]

I was talking about particularly the legions.

I don't doubt that Vespasian wanted to be emperor, but i think he was smart enough not to try. He initially sent Titus to hail Galba, but was recalled once Otho took power. At that point it was obviously not going to be a smooth transition of power in Rome and Titus came back. Long before he deposed Vitellus he had all of the eastern legions swear loyalty to him, which probably wasn't too hard since that was the theater he was used to working in, but you can never tell. Lots of legions turned on their commanders in later centuries.

As far as the local populace, that's probably also true, the syrians certainly did have a certain contempt for the Jews and tensions in Caesarea between syrians and Jews is what set off the whole war to begin with. I imagine keeping them in place was not as hard as the Jews but they had their own motives. Perhaps this is another reason why the men were impossible to contain when they destroyed the temple. If they were large numbers of syrian troops, they would want blood.

Travis