If you have not started already, I suggest diving into the readings for the Arrival of Rome and Herod, and Judaea under Roman rule.
The first reading for tomorrow's class, Josephus BJ I: 184-215 describes the early careers of Herod and his brother Phasael. The background is, of course, the civil war between Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Think about how Antipater and his two sons use this conflict to their advantage.
Herod, who eventually became the Roman client king over the Jews, early in his career met with harsh criticism. He was called to trial for his brutal treatment of a group of brigands, bringing him into near open conflict with Hyrcanus and prominent Jews from the Jerusalem community. How might this incident point to some of the political tensions that were brewing in early Roman Palestine during the high priesthood of Hyrcanus II?
The second reading, Josephus BJ: 401-428 , describes some of the building projects that Herod was responsible for after being crowned king.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Josephus’ Rationalization
In writing his books Josephus was attempting several affects. His works were possible because of the support of his Roman patrons and rescuers, Vespasian and Titus. His books must therefore reflect upon these emperors favorably, and more broadly, upon Rome and Romans as well. According to Ben-Sasson, Bellum Judaicum “was written in praise of the Roman Empire” (292). At the same time, Josephus had no desire to portray the Jews badly. According to Richard Gottheil in The Jewish Encyclopedia, in writing Antiquitates Judaicæ “it was the purpose of Josephus to glorify the Jewish people,” and his later Contra Apionem serves only as a Jewish apology, “to prove the antiquity of the Jewish people.”
And in all his works, Josephus seeks to depict himself in the most positive way possible. This was particularly difficult because he had first been fighting on the Jewish side, and was then on the Roman side. This may or may not make him a “traitor,” but it is clear that it did make things complicated. Gottheil describes the situation during the siege of Jerusalem: “On the one hand, the Jews desired to capture and punish him; on the other, the Romans, whenever they were beaten, held him for a traitor.” He writes his autobiography, Vita, “because Justus of Tiberias had placed the blame for the revolt on Josephus,” and he wished to redeem himself in the Romans’ eyes. Yet many of his works are intended for a Jewish audience, and he has no desire to appear a traitor. When he writes about the first Jewish war, he strives to illustrate that he did the right thing in saving himself and going over to the Romans. In Bellum Judaicum, V:362-378, he makes it clear that he did the right thing because God is on the side of the Romans.
During the siege of Jerusalem, Titus “delegated Josephus to parley with [the Jews] in their native tongue” (BJ, V:361). Josephus is being asked to convince the fighters of Jerusalem to do exactly what he had done earlier himself upon the fall of Jotapata. He is telling them to surrender because they are fighting a loosing battle. Why are they loosing? Because it is the will of God. He says, “God who went the round of nations, bringing to each in turn the rod of empire, now rested over Italy” (367). This is the reason “their forefathers, men who in soul and body, aye, and in resources to boot, were by far their superiors, had yielded to the Romans—a thing intolerable to them, had they not known that God was on the Roman side” (368).
The idea that the Jews are loosing because God has left them is not a new one. When the Kingdom of Israel is destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BCE the remaining people in Judah conclude that the destruction is God’s punishment. After the fall of Judah in 586 BCE, the prophet Jeremiah recognizes the destruction of the First Temple and their subsequent plight in Babylon as the work of God. This postexilic theology is apparent in the works of Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as others.
In joining the Romans, Josephus was making a change in alliance grounded in realpolitik. But even while making this cold decision, he must have provided himself with some rationalization. If has enough loyalty to the Jewish people to write books depicting them well, he must have justified his deflection to himself as well as to his readers. It is logical to assume that the rationalization he used himself is the same one he gives to the besieged Jews of Jerusalem: “You are warring no against the Romans only, but also against God” (378).
Josephus’ work, in many instances, serves to whitewash his deflection from the Jews and his initial revolt against the Romans. He does so in reaction to aspersions cast on him by Jews and Romans, specifically Justus of Tiberias. But it is possible that in his work when he justifies himself to his readers, he is also engaged in justifying his actions to himself. The psychological need to rationalize is a powerful drive, but it is also an irrational mechanism. We delude ourselves regularly to excuse or explain our behavior. Josephus is her exhibiting the human tendency to believe what we want. He wanted to save his life and join the Romans, so he saw it as God’s will.
Works Cited:
Gottheil, Richard, and Samuel Krauss. “Josephus, Flavious.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 274-281. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906-1910. JewishEncyclopedia.com. 20 Oct 2006. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=543&letter=J#1805
Josephus. Bellum Judaicum, V:362-378.
Stern, M. “The Period of the Second Temple. A History of the Jewish People. H. H. Ben-Sasson, ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. P., 1976. (185-306)
In regards to the question posed in "The Arrival of Rome and Herod", it seems rather natural, in a domino theory, for political tensions to brew during any time when a major political leader in an area is thought to have misconducted one's self. In the case of any leader (e.g. Herod) being criticized publicly (e.g. called to trial), it seems natural that the local area (e.g. Roman Palestine) would essentially spark a flame of controversy, ambiguity, and distrust that would maintain a burning presence within the whole local governing body - even for years to come, and maybe even despite a complete regime change.
Post a Comment