Titus, Josephus and the Torching of the Temple

[Kate Gilliver]

According to the conventions of ancient warfare, the burning of the temple was entirely acceptable, and under the circumstances not entirely surprising. The siege had been particularly difficult and Jerusalem had been taken by storm which usually leads to widespread rape, pillage and slaughter. As Jim (Tarbicus) says, it's extremely difficult to control troops under these circumstances. Whether or not Titus ordered the burning of the temple, its destruction made an extremely powerful statement at the end of the campaign - which for Rome signalled the end of the serious bits of the revolt. Whatever Titus' role - and Josephus was never going to portray the son of his patron as the man who ordered the burning of such an important building to Judaism and the Jewish people - its destruction was very convenient.

[tlclark]

I thought I posted a response to several of the posts here but it disappeared!

Hmmm. Curious. Was it edited or did it just not go through on my side?

Oh well.

Basically I agreed with most of what Cornelius Kate and others had to say.

My final point was that it now seems that Titus had plausible reasons for saving the temple that had nothing to do with his magnanimous nature, though Josephus undoubtedly spins it that way.

Thanks.

Travis

[Robert Vermaat]

I thought I posted a response to several of the posts here but it disappeared!

You've posted 6 times on this thread yesterday. You're sure it wasn't any of them?

[john m roberts]

Before the Romans stormed Syracuse Marcellus ordered that Archimedes be spared. He even preserved Archimedes' house, when all others were demolished for the Roman siege works. A soldier killed him anyway. As said above, Roman soldiers were all but uncontrollable after a storming, and their leaders had no particular interest in controlling them. It was customary to make an example of a city that resisted to the end as a warning to show what happened to anyone who resisted Rome.

[tlclark]

I thought I posted a response to several of the posts here but it disappeared!

You've posted 6 times on this thread yesterday. You're sure it wasn't any of them?

Yeah because I was responding to Cornelius' and Kate's post directly above mine.

I think it must have gotten lost in the ether of Temple's servers, which is not uncommon.

Travis

[TraderTrey9785]

Fact and fiction...I think he does have knowledge of many of the events in his accounts, however, I do believe that some of it is fabricated. It is doubtful that he could have been everywhere at once, and I think he painted the picture in his narrative that best suited his own opinions at the time.

Regarding the temple...I'm fairly sure it was ordered, if not by Titus, then by someone else. The sheer intensity of the siege, along with ferocious nature of the Jews would probably have encouraged senior centurions or tribunes to order the burning of the temple as retribution. Titus might even have done so, contrary to the account. I think it's possible that it might have been an accident, however, even if it was, it probably would've been torched regardless.

Unfortunately, no one will ever know for sure....

[john m roberts]

I don't think the Romans would have been concerned about preserving the temple. WWII air forces of all sides bombed plenty of cathedrals. They'd spare major Christian sites as long as there was no tactical significance to them, as in declaring Rome an open city, but I'm sure if the Germans had decided to fortify and defend Rome, Rome would have been flattened by Allied bombers. Religion goes only so far in warfare, and somebody else's religion doesn't go far at all.

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't think the Romans would have been concerned about preserving the temple.

I don't think so eiter. When they destroyed a Druid stronghold, they also destroyed the sacred trees. Normally the Romans did not care about other gods, welcoming them into their pantheon even, except when such a god or a religion became a source of rebellion or anti-Roman actions. That's the reason, after all, why the early Christians were prosecuted (not persecuted): they refused to acknowledge their duty in sacrificing to the religious equilibrium.

[floofthegoof]

I don't think the Romans would have been concerned about preserving the temple.

I don't think so eiter. When they destroyed a Druid stronghold, they also destroyed the sacred trees. Normally the Romans did not care about other gods, welcoming them into their pantheon even, except when such a god or a religion became a source of rebellion or anti-Roman actions. That's the reason, after all, why the early Christians were prosecuted (not persecuted): they refused to acknowledge their duty in sacrificing to the religious equilibrium.

Don't forget though, this isn't just *a* temple, this is *the* temple! Putting down an uprising is not the same as all out war. You want the province to retain as much of it's value to you as possible, bearing in mind that in a way, you are fighting against yourself. If your left foot is bothering you, you want to try and cure it with the least drastic means before amputation.

Knowing that the uprising had it roots in religious discontent, I'm sure that the destruction of the temple would be seen by the commanders as risky and possibly counterproductive. The common soldiers, being young and totally unaware of their own purpose in the big picture would not have recognized this and so the temple was destroyed. No doubt this act escalated the need for an even heavier crack-down. I'm sure it would be preferred to get by with less.

Once that kind of harm is inflicted, you have to stick to your guns. Any lightening up will be perceived as a weakness to be exploited. This is because you've already proven to your willingness to cause any amount of suffering to get your way. Now that you've gotten your way, what possible reason could you have for generosity? You want our friendship after you have proven your emnity? The Romans are afraid of us! They are on the verge of defeat! Even an offer to rebuild the temple could easily ignite the whole uprising again.

[tlclark]

Once that kind of harm is inflicted, you have to stick to your guns. Any lightening up will be perceived as a weakness to be exploited. This is because you've already proven to your willingness to cause any amount of suffering to get your way. Now that you've gotten your way, what possible reason could you have for generosity?

A good point. The Sultan once asked Ibn Khaldun's advice about tearing down the ruins at Persepolis. Ibn Khaldun said don't bother because if it proved too hard it would only make him look weaker. He ignored his advice and later found out it was too hard and asked Khaldun if he should stop and Khaldun said no way, since he had begun he HAD to finish or risk looking foolish.

Maybe the thing did get away from Titus, and he decided to 'go' with it rather than appear weak.

That still doesn't fit in with Josephus' narrative and suggests that Josephus is spinning facts egregiously.

Travis

[Narukami]

In addition to the religious component to the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the 60’s there was also an economic one. In fact I would dare say that economic hardship was a greater motivator for most rebels than was religious intolerance by the Romans.

As pointed out above the Romans, generally speaking, were the very models of polytheistic inclusion, so long as the religion did not subvert or oppose the civic duties required by Rome of its citizens and subject peoples.

Indeed, sacrifices for the well being of the Roman emperor were conducted daily in the Temple at Jerusalem. Many Jews were not happy about this, but the high priests and the Jewish aristocrats understood this to be the price of peaceful co-existence with the Romans.

On several occasions the Romans made provocative gestures, like placing the legion standards in the Temple, and in most cases the Romans backed down and reversed course or removed the offending items.

Besides, the Jewish aristocracy had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with the Romans. The upper classes of Judea, including the high priests, for the most part enjoyed a very Hellenic lifestyle. In short they liked being rich and enjoying the fruits of other people’s labor. They were part of a cosmopolitan world and paying lip service to the ‘cult of the emperor’ was a small price to pay.

The common people, however, paid a much heavier price.

The money to support the Temple and the High Priests, the king and his court, the import of luxury items and the vast building programs, taxes to the Romans etc. came from the people working on land that was, in may cases, unable to support both the subsistence life of the peasants and the lavish life of the aristocrats. Eventually something had to give.

Religion may have been the spark that started the revolt but economic oppression was the fuel that fed the fire that became the Jewish War.

That being said, how then do we answer the question at hand: Did Titus Destroy the Temple on purpose?

There is no good reason why Titus should have, and excellent reasons why he should not.

Religion can be a powerful tool for controlling the masses. The Romans knew this – they had been doing just that for years both at home and abroad. They had a working relationship with the High Priests and would certainly find them useful in putting the province of Judea back together again. Likewise Rome had limited military resources and could not afford to leave a large army in Judea policing a restive populace. They needed Judea to produce wealth not consume it. Better to have the Jews police themselves, and who is a more powerful policeman than god?

Was Titus smart enough to realize this?

Perhaps. Certainly he was a good general, but saying he was also an astute politician who could see that in the long run preserving the Temple was in Rome’s best interests may be imposing upon him political savvy and sophistication he did not posses.

Suppose however that Titus was that smart but that the situation on the temple mount got out of hand and the Temple was burnt down against his wishes.

First, we know that “once the ram had touched the wallâ€

[Jona Lendering]

To return to the original question, we have written evidence that contradicts Josephus. It is Tacitus, Histories, fragment 1-2 (= Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7).

(2.30.6) It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty.

(2.30.7) But others, on the contrary, disagreed - including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians: For although these religions are conflicting, they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: with that root removed, the branch was easily killed.

Please note that the original triumphal arch of Titus (not the present honorific arch, although it shows the triumphal arch on its relief) was in the Circus Maximus, opposite a Jewish-Christian quarter, and on the spot where the great fire of Rome started. One of the motives to set the temple afire appears to have been revenge for the fire of Rome.

[Tarbicus]

So Josephus span a yarn. You're right Travis

[Jona Lendering]

Josephus span a yarn.

I think that's too bold a conculusion. Josephus used a different tradition. Personally, I think he is wrong, but Tacitus is not the most reliable source regarding Jews...

[tlclark]

Livius!

Thanks for the quote!! I hadn't found that one before.

So it sounds as if the matter was debated, Titus decided in favor of it, but Josephus put his own spin on it and was probably not privy to the final discussion.

As far as Tacitus, he quotes Manethos extensively for his history of the Jews, and states that they were lepers expelled from Egypt. Josephus writes his Contra Apion against this same theory so it's probably clear what Tacitus thought about Josephus' rebuttal assuming he knew about it.

Thanks again!

Travis