Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-nvqbz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T01:29:44.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II A Sword in Heaven: The Jewish War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2025

Get access

Extract

A star which resembled a broadsword hung over the city, as well as a comet which stayed there for a whole year. Before the revolt and the turmoil of war, when the people had gathered for the feast of unleavened bread on the eighth of the month Xanthicus, a light emanated from the altar and the sanctuary at the ninth hour of the night and shone so brightly for half an hour that it seemed like daytime.

(BJ 6.289–90)
By means of these and other signs and portents, related just before his account of the destruction of the Temple, Josephus indicates both the importance of the events he is describing and the fact that the hand of a higher power was directing affairs. The passage comes from the Jewish War, his earliest extant work, produced (at least for the most part) less than a decade after the calamitous event which it commemorates. Despite being his earliest surviving text, it could be considered his most mature historical work: a brilliantly structured, tightly focused, and grippingly written narrative of national trauma, characterized by both Thucydidean political realism and Deuteronomistic grandeur of vision. It engages in apologia on several fronts: justifying Rome to the Jews, justifying Judaism to Rome, justifying the Flavians to their critics, and justifying Josephus to everybody. However, none of these apologetic tendencies impair the working out, by Josephus, of a distinctive and developed understanding of events. Despite its reputation in some quarters, the Jewish War is not propaganda. The vision which it articulates is always and entirely Josephus’ own.

Type
Chapter
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 50: Josephus , 2020 , pp. 26 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See also V 361.

2 In favour of a late addition: S. Schwartz 1986; Barnes 2005; D. Schwartz 2011. Against: Brighton 2009: 33–41; Mason 2016c 14–15.

3 Davies 2023: 61–73.

4 Thuc. 1.1–3. On Josephus and Thucydides, see Mader 2000: 56–103; Price 2011b.

5 Polyb. 6.26–42; BJ 3.70–109. On Josephus and Polybius, see Cohen 1982a; Eckstein 1990; Walbank 2002.

6 Compare with Thucydides (again) 1.22.2.

7 V 419; BJ 5.419. See also C.Ap 1.49: Josephus obtained information on what happened inside the city from deserters during the war.

8 V 342; C.Ap 1.56. On commentarii, see Riggsby 2006: 131–56.

9 For citations to these sources, see, for example, AJ 12.135–7 (Polybius); AJ 13.286–7 (Strabo); AJ 13.250–1 (Nicolaus). On Josephus, Nicolaus, and Herod, see Toher 1989; Teets 2013; Czajkowski and Eckhardt 2021.

10 Davies 2013: 81–3.

11 See above, p. 18.

12 Rhoads 1976: 30–1; Bilde 1979; McLaren 1998: 21–47; Rogers 2021: 15–134.

13 Florus’ outrageous conduct (which Josephus claims at 2.282–3 was deliberately inflammatory, in order to provoke a war to prevent him from being prosecuted for maladministration) included failing to protect the Jews of Caesarea from Gentile aggression (2.284–92) and unleashing soldiers on civilians in a Jerusalem market when faced with protests (2.305).

14 For a similar rejection of notions of escalating tension (although a rather more optimistic reading of the situation in general), see Goodman 2007: 317–32.

15 Josephus’ account of outbreaks of violence between Samaritans and Galileans in the time of Cumanus (2.232–46) illustrates these mechanisms of petition and response well. Cumanus initially ignores a request for help from the region; when violence gets out of hand, he belatedly intervenes. Unhappy with the procurator's response, the Samaritans and the Judaeans send representatives to the Syrian legate, who in turn refers the situation to the emperor. On petition and response in the Roman world in general, see Hauken 1998.

16 On Josephus’ framing of this system in general, see Goodman 1987: 7–9; Sanders 1992: 35; Rajak 2002: 65–77.

17 E.g. Graetz 1888: 457–8; Schlatter 1923; Yavetz 1975; Alon 1977: 252–68; M. Stern 1987.

18 Mason 2003a; Barclay 2005; Mason 2005a and b; Spilsbury 2005.

19 Davies 2023.

20 Mason 2016a: 335–401; Davies 2023: 74–84, 118–20.

21 Davies 2023: 136–8.

22 Davies 2023: 79–80, 134–6.

23 Hollander 2014: 92; Mason 2016a: 123–5; Davies 2023: 138–9.

24 Davies 2023: 98–127.

25 Davies 2023: 84–98.

26 Mason 2005a: 254–8.

27 Paul 1993; Davies 2023: 146–9.

28 Davies 2023: 150–3.

29 Davies 2023: 160–8.

30 Yavetz 1975; Suet. Tit. 6–7.

31 Lavan 2014.

32 M. Stern 1987.

33 For Roman justifications for empire, see Brunt 1979; Webster 1995.

34 On στάσις in Josephus, see Price 2011b; Davies 2023: 121–3.

35 On Josephus’ tyrannoi, see Rhoads 1976: 162–3. Although the word was originally non-pejorative, by the time of Josephus it had acquired thoroughly and consistently sinister connotations.

36 On bandit language in Josephus, see Horsley 1979; Ben Yishai 2021.

37 Mader 2000: 27–8.

38 On zealots, see Donaldson 1990; Horsley and Hanson 1999: 216–43.

39 The picture is somewhat complicated at BJ 7.254, where Josephus seems to indicate that the sicarii emerged long before this, in 6 ce.

40 E.g. Rapoport 1983; Kaplan 2019; Rapoport 2022: 13–64.

41 On the sicarii in Josephus, see Brighton 2009; Vandenberghe 2016.

42 For Simon's role at Beth Horon, see BJ 2.517–22. For his early ‘banditry’ and withdrawal to Masada, see BJ 2.652–3.

43 Cf. Thuc. 2.65.

44 Edwards 1992; Cody 2003; Noreña 2003; Davies 2023: 104–8.

45 Proponents of this position include Price 1992: 162–74; Spilsbury 2002; Barnes 2005; Pucci ben Zeev 2011.

46 Leoni 2001; Rajak 2002: 206–12; Goodman 2007: 440–3; Leoni 2007.

47 On emotion, historiography and Josephus, see Glas 2020; Teets 2020; Mirguit 2022.

48 Arist. Poet. 1449b.

49 On this episode, see Thérond 1981: 241–3; Paul 1993; Davies 2023: 156–8.

50 See Cohen 1982a; Ferda 2013.

51 See Davies 2019.

52 On Maria, see Mader 2000: 140–6; Gleason 2001; Chapman 2005: 142–5; Chapman 2007a; Mason 2016a: 116–21.

53 On the triumph in Josephus, see Beard 2003; Ash 2014; Mason 2016a: 20–30; Davies 2023: 197–202.

54 Mason 2016a: 27–30; Davies 2023: 197–202.

55 E.g. Richmond 1962; Yadin 1966; Eshel 2009.

56 For a good recent overview, see Magness 2019, esp. 5–25, 163–200.

57 Ladouceur 1987; Mason 2009.

58 Hulls 2018.

59 Vidal-Naquet 1978; Ladouceur 1987.

60 See above, pp. 26–7.

61 White 1973: 7–11, 163–90, 191–229.