Roman Army Jews Jewish Soldiers Articles

[Restitvtvs]

Very interesting articles.

http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/shofar/v024/24.3schoenfeld.pdf

http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/Roth%20Jewish%20Forces.pdf


[Edit 24 Jul 08: Thank you all for your posts below, through 24 Jul 08. Laudes for the links/citations. ]

[Jona Lendering]

Very interesting and convincing indeed. They are spin-offs of what I call the "Schwartz thesis": Seth Schwartz proposed in his Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE (Princeton, 2001) that the Jews were far more assimilated than is commonly assumed, and that they were recreated when the Empire became Christian. I thought it was completely convincing, and am glad to see it corroborated.

[S SEVERUS]

Indeed, very interesting to read. So the first jewish war was'nt simply a war against the romans but more or less a civil war.

I didn't know there were roman army units exclusively with jewish soldiers for such a long time. Or was it simply in origin jewish and was later filled with others? Did they also participate in the emperor cult?

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Good read - however, I'd point out that the "Royal Emesene Jews" unit mentioned in the first document has now been disproved - it was based on a misreading of a grave inscription.

[Tarbicus]

These are excellent, thanks very much. Laudes.

There's been much said about the burning of the temple in Jerusalem, and theories abound about how Josephus' description of Titus desperately trying to ensure the temple wasn't defiled was a cynical fawning to Titus and Vespasian. However, given that the military commander appointed to assist Titus by Vespasian, Tiberius Julius Alexander, was himself Jewish, and seemingly tried to maintain some of his religious sensibilities in the last days of the war, it lends far more credence to Josephus' account being true IMHO.

History; nothing's black and white.

[Jona Lendering]

it lends far more credence to Josephus' account being true IMHO.

Yes; from a military point of view, certainly. However, his image of a city consumed by its own sins is, of course, a caricature, partly written to prove the veracity of the old prophecies (like the story about the woman who baked her own child, which echoes a prophecy that, at the moment, I can not immediately recall). The heroic citizens Ben Kalba', Ben Sisit Hakkeset, and Naqdimon ben Gurion, who did their best to make sure that people received food, are not mentioned; we only known them from rabbinical literature.

Josephus is obsessed by the sins of the Jew-in-the-street, which are punished by the Lord, who had used the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Seleucids as His stick - now it was the Romans who punished His stubborn people. The Jewish War is, essentially, a theological treatise, proving that the rich Hasmonaeans, to which Josephus belonged, were right.

[Narukami]

Interesting articles indeed.

Concerning the notion that the Jewish War was strictly an anti-Roman war I would recommend the book Apocalypse:The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73 by Neil Faulkner. He submits that this war was as much a revolt and repudiation of the Jewish upper class as it was a revolt against Rome.

The war was definitely not a Jewish Vs. Roman only affair.

This idea is echoed by Martin Goodman in his book Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. Dr. Goodman also examines the reasons why (as he sees it) the Romans did destroy the Temple and went to some lengths to deny the Jews the opportunity to rebuild it.

The actual destruction of the Temple may have started accidentally, but the Flavians took full political advantage of the destruction, as did the Emperors who followed them.

Once again thanks for posting these articles.

:wink:

Narukami

[Jona Lendering]

Concerning the notion that the Jewish War was strictly an anti-Roman war I would recommend the book Apocalypse:The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73 by Neil Faulkner. He submits that this war was as much a revolt and repudiation of the Jewish upper class as it was a revolt against Rome.

That's actually not a new thesis. It's a more or less common criticism of Josephus that he failed to understand the social-economic causes of the revolt, the fact that the war became one of poor against rich, and that Messianism was a way to express social discontent.

Once the poor had got the war they (or many of them) wanted, the Temple authorities tried to redirect the poor Jews' energies, and gave leaders to the armies (like Josephus). Popular, but moderate leaders like the Pharisee Simon ben Gamaliel, were accepted in some sort of provisional government. The idea behind this policy may have been that the Temple authorities remained in charge of the nation. Once the Romans appeared, they would surrender before the country had been destroyed completely; that would leave at least some kind of Temple government intact.

As it turned out, the Romans came, but at that moment, the power of the Temple government was already eroding: think of the struggle of Josephus, leader of the official army, against the peasant army of John of Gischala. The Zealots captured the Temple itself. What was left of traditional power, was destroyed in 68-69, when the war against Rome came to a standstill because Vespasian had other things to do.

Although Josephus mentions the bare facts, he does not give this overall analysis. In his view, the rebellious mob was just sinful, and violent resistance against foreign rulers "unJewish".

[Narukami]

True enough Jona

However...

I'm not certain that aspect is well know or widely acknowledged as evidenced by some of the other posts.

Even so, points well taken sir.

Narukami

[Jona Lendering]

I'm not certain that aspect is well know or widely acknowledged as evidenced by some of the other posts.

A good book in [amazon]Andrea M. Berlin, J. Andrew Overman (eds.): The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History, and Ideology[/amazon] (2002).

[Narukami]

Thanks for the recommendation Jona -- I have added that book to my Amazon list (I will need to live for another 100 years to have any hope of reading through my every growing Amazon list... :? )

Another book on my list (that I have yet to read :oops: ) that might be if interest: The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome by Martin Goodman

http://www.amazon.com/Ruling-Class-Juda ... 634&sr=8-3

You may already know of this book -- it is another one I do plan on reading. (No really, I will try to read all the books on my list...honest :roll: )

Thanks again.

:wink:

Narukami

[Paullus Scipio]

Josephus himself, despite his own agenda, is well worth reading.Here is a sample, though the Penguin translation is better to modern eyes than this rather old-fashioned Loeb...

NOW the warlike men that were in the city, and the multitude of the seditious that were with Simon, were ten thousand, besides the Idumeans. Those ten thousand had fifty commanders, over whom this Simon was supreme. The Idumeans that paid him homage were five thousand, and had eight commanders, among whom those of greatest fame were Jacob the son of Sosas, and Simon the son of Cathlas. Jotre, who had seized upon the temple, had six thousand armed men under twenty commanders; the zealots also that had come over to him, and left off their opposition, were two thousand four hundred, and had the same commander that they had formerly, Eleazar, together with Simon the son of Arinus. Now, while these factions fought one against another, the people were their prey on both sides, as we have said already; and that part of the people who would not join with them in their wicked practices were plundered by both factions. Simon held the upper city, and the great wall as far as Cedron, and as much of the old wall as bent from Siloam to the east, and which went down to the palace of Monobazus, who was king of the Adiabeni, beyond Euphrates; he also held that fountain, and the Acra, which was no other than the lower city; he also held all that reached to the palace of queen Helena, the mother of Monobazus. But John held the temple, and the parts thereto adjoining, for a great way, as also Ophla, and the valley called "the Valley of Cedron;" and when the parts that were interposed between their possessions were burnt by them, they left a space wherein they might fight with each other; for this internal sedition did not cease even when the Romans were encamped near their very wall. But although they had grown wiser at the first onset the Romans made upon them, this lasted but a while; for they returned to their former madness, and separated one from another, and fought it out, and did everything that the besiegers could desire them to do; for they never suffered any thing that was worse from the Romans than they made each other suffer; nor was there any misery endured by the city after these men's actions that could be esteemed new. But it was most of all unhappy before it was overthrown, while those that took it did it a greater kindness for I venture to affirm that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition, which it was a much harder thing to do than to destroy the walls; so that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people, and the just vengeance taken on them to the Romans; as to which matter let every one determine by the actions on both sides.

As can be seen, even with the Romans besieging the city of Jerusalem, the various factions continued their vicious civil war, amid shifting alliances...

[D B Campbell]

A good book in [amazon]Andrea M. Berlin, J. Andrew Overman (eds.): The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History, and Ideology[/amazon] (2002).

It is a good book, Jona, with up-to-date archaeology.

If you can't find it, try this link: [amazon]The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology[/amazon]! (The "Amazon" tag seems to do a title search.)