Titus, Josephus and the Torching of the Temple

[tlclark]

On several occasions Josephus makes it clear that the burning of the Temple was a mistake, that Titus' men were just too enraged and he couldn't contain them. The whole narrative is incredible to say the least.

The fire rages out of control and Titus goes to the temple personally to organize an attempt to save it but no one will listen to him.

Now, Josephus has always struck me as a self-serving prat, now more so than ever as I reread this account. It seems implausible at best.

I think the best evidence that Titus did order the burning is the fact that he hauled off the sacred artifacts, installed them in the Temple of Peace, and never allowed the Jews to rebuild. All of which are inconsistent with the image of the grieving and impotent Titus in Josephus.

Any opinions on this?

Travis

[Comerus Gallus]

I heard rumors that Christians & Jews shouldn't belive in Josephus account.

Jews hate him, and was regarded as a Traitor of their nation...

Now that you post that I'm more concerning about... Even in some histories he wrote from the Torah are not consistent with the holly sriptures.

[tlclark]

Well I'm split on Josephus' reliability.

On two many occasions, his knowledge of local topography has been too good not to be trusted. Even though Yigal Yadin was a little too enthusiastic in his claims of validating Josephus, he has been remarkably accurate at times.

In other cases however, his work seems to be very congratulatory and adulatory of the Romans. And of course, the only person who always looks good is him.

Regarding his antiquities of the Jews, I've noticed that as well, but in that case I think the problem is his sources and not him. His accounts are more in agreement with what we know from the Septuagint and the Talmud and not the Masoretic text, which means that he is coming from a very Hellenized background, which is not surprising.

But on this account, I think he's just a damned liar.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

But on this account, I think he's just a damned liar.

Harsh! :wink:

It's clear he admired the Romans (not that he had too much choice). But would he have specifically written that Titus regretted what happened, or just simply avoided the subject altogether?

[tlclark]

Well the narrative is just preposterous.

The jewish defenses of the inner courts have been broken, and the romans are irate over the incident of the fire that the jews set previously and Titus orders the inner courts set on fire, but somehow is shocked when news comes that the temple itself is on fire. Then he goes into the buring temple to organize its rescue, but those darn men, those darn legionnaires just won't listen. They are just too angry. (I think a quick flogging would've stopped that) So Titus departs in despair.

I mean I just can't buy it.

[Tarbicus]

Then he goes into the buring temple to organize its rescue, but those darn men, those darn legionnaires just won't listen. They are just too angry. (I think a quick flogging would've stopped that) So Titus departs in despair.

What's wrong with that? There are cases of tribunes being threatened with death when the men wanted to sorty out during sieges. One was actually gutted by a centurion for being a whimp. Even Caesar had difficulty controlling his men, and was totally unable to do so at times. During that same war Titus had gotten himself into trouble through being foolish and had to be rescued. Perhaps the men actually thought he was a joke, which is something Josephus would never have written? Don't forget, in the same book the men had taken the initiative more than once without orders, and actually saved the day or at least tipped the balance in favour of the Romans. They never would have been at the Temple in the first place had it not been for a small group scaling the tower at night and taking it on their own initiative. Perhaps Josephus' account doesn't lie about Titus' wishes, but omits that the men had little respect for him, which would have been far more damaging for Titus?

[tlclark]

Ok, well that makes the narrative a bit more plausible.

That also puts a whole spin on the immediate aftermath of the taking of th antonia and the initial push onto the Temple court. Titus is described as over eager and then has to be restrained and convinced to watch from the undemolished SE tower, under the premise that he needed to watch the men so that he could reward the most courageous.

Maybe they were just trying to get rid of him!

But Josephus does make it seem that the men love him and desire to impress him with their bravery.

So all we've established really is that Josephus is a liar, we just don't know where and when.:wink:

I will say this, I know that from our era we expect a different tone, but does anybody like Josephus's self-serving descriptions of himself?

Travis

[Tarbicus]

It might be worth reading the text whilst ignoring Josephus' subjective comments, and just read it in terms of 'this happened' and 'then that happened', as a sequential list of events. Let the events tell the story, rather than Jospehus? Download the text, put it into Word, and delete Jospehus' subjective opinions and thoughts so you're left only with the tightest and most basic of descriptions.

[tlclark]

Well under that standard perhaps I should be more suspicious of the episode, because it contains several general paens to Titus's leadership, etc.

It just feels fabricated. The night raid on the Antonia however is very different, it is very precise and even names the number of the raid, 12 legionnaires, 2 horsemen, a trumpeteer and a signifier.

He also mentions several unique moments, with names, that have that same feel.

Believing that Titus goes into the heart of the mele to organize a fire brigade strains the narrative a little too much - IMO.

Travis

[Q Rutilius]

I think Tarbicus is on to something here. "Just the facts", as Sgt. Joe Friday would say. It's been a while since I've read Josephus, but I have on more than one occasion just ignored his paens to Titus, and frankly, in that case, his narrative seems to make sense. There are a good many examples of Roman soldiers getting out of hand - Thapsus comes to mind. Perhaps Titus did not want to see the temple destroyed. Who knows? Jerusalem was an important city, and the temple was an important part of it. From Titus point of view the whole thing may have been seen as a civil war, and in a civil war, if you are being rational, you would rather not destroy what is yours and will be yours again.

[tlclark]

I think Titus' actions afterwards cast Josephus' descriptions into doubt more than anything else.

The pogroms, the seizure of the artifacts of the temple, the triumph, etc.

Also before the fall of the Antonia, Josephus has Titus crucifying 300 people foraging for food in the kidron.

I think that between these two acts we have to judge his sudden compassion at the fall of the Temple circumspectly. Although it may be he was sad to see the marvelous building go, and not the Temple of the Jews. Plenty of people feel compassion over historical bldgs but think nothing of the people that built them.

I was surprised to see a great many churches in the Netherlands and Scotland have been converted to bars. While it may preserve the building, it kinda misses the point.

Oh well.

Travis.

[Tarbicus]

Or perhaps he realised he needed to regain the confidence and respect of the men, and decided to act as they would or seemingly desired?

[floofthegoof]

Since none of us were there, I always feel that the burdon of proof lies on us to disprove the stories.

If Titus's objective was to put down the revolt, he may well have seen the burning of the temple as a disaster to that end. Not out of compassion, but out of concern for the fruits of his hard work, might he have tried to save it. Once the revolt was down, and things were calm in spite of this, he might have seen that actually rebuilding the temple could only inflame things once again. All risk, no reward.

[Q Rutilius]

Since none of us were there, I always feel that the burdon of proof lies on us to disprove the stories.

If Titus's objective was to put down the revolt, he may well have seen the burning of the temple as a disaster to that end. Not out of compassion, but out of concern for the fruits of his hard work, might he have tried to save it. Once the revolt was down, and things were calm in spite of this, he might have seen that actually rebuilding the temple could only inflame things once again. All risk, no reward.

[quote]Plenty of people feel compassion over historical bldgs but think nothing of the people that built them.

I agree with these two opinons and was trying to say something like that in my earlier post; I just did not phrase it very well.

As for what he did afterwards, things may have looked different to him then. The looting etc looks to be pretty common practice in those days.
Given the domestic politics - Vespasian new to the throne - and there was an empire to run, and the culture of the times, it is highly unlikely that anyone else would have acted any differently. This is not an apologia, just trying to put things in the culture of the times.

[Cornelius Quintus]

Believing that Titus goes into the heart of the mele to organize a fire brigade strains the narrative a little too much - IMO.

Ave Travis,

why I'm thinking of Crassus legendary Roman fire brigade now? :wink:

But seriously: What could be Titus's motives to rescue the temple? Of course no religious ones. Perhaps he wanted to loot the rest of the temple, before destroying it? He hauled out the menora and the religious treasures.

There were rumors of melted gold of the temple decoration, running between the stones, so the Roman soldiers broke away stone by stone to get it. Perhaps Titus and his army were wrangling about their haul?

If the troops resisted Titus orders - it might not have been the first or last occasion in history, plundering troops got out of control. Plundering always was 'off limits', leaving the sacked town without any law, rules or help until the army got tired of running riot. Commanders could prohibit it's start but hardly control it afterwards.