A horror story by Josephus

[Jona Lendering]

Here is a story by Josephus (Jewish War, 3.246)

And any one may learn the force of the ballistas by what happened this very night [...] a pregnant woman had her belly so violently struck, as she was just come out of her house, that the infant was carried to the distance of half a furlong, so great was the force of that engine.

My edition says that this is no doubt exaggerated. Maybe a obstetrician knows it better, but here is a quote from a Dutch inscription in a church, dating back to the seventeenth century:

On the 29th of August 1647, Jacob Eg and Trijn Jans, a couple from the Westzaandam and Zeeburg quarter, were attacked, hit and maltreated by an angry bull [...] and died [...]. Both were buried in the New Church, in this town.
Trijn Jans was in the final days of her pregnancy. She was lifted up on the horns of the bull, thrown up, and her belly and hip were cut open, and the baby was thrown out of her body through this hole. The baby and the mother fell in a pool of water [...]separated by about twenty meters. The boy was baptized and called Jacob, but died on the 23d of May 1648, and was buried with his parents.

So that's another story about a baby who is born in-mid air; the main difference, however, is that the second story is from a contemporary source, and almost certainly true, and can be corroborated from the Church's books on baptism and burial. Today, the church is called "Bull's Church" (bullekerk). [Edit: webpage available now: go here]

Op den 29 Augustus 1647, zijn Jacob Eg en Trijn Jans, echte man en wijf, woonende in ’t quartier van Westsardam en den Zeeburg, door de verwoedheydt van haar eigen roode stier, dewelke in ’t veld agter haar huys van ’t zeel losgeraakt was, in zulker voege aangerand, gestooten en gescheurd, dat zij beyde daarvan zijn komen te overlijden, op den laatsten Augustus deszelven jaars, namelijk de voorz. Trijn Jans vijf uren tijds na haren man, zijnde beyde ter aarde besteld in de Nieuwe kerk alhier. Trijn Jans op ’t uyterste zwanger gaande, wierdt bij den stier op de hoornen genomen, omhoog geworpen, en haar buyk van de regterheup opengescheurt, zo dat deur dezelve opening de vrucht uit haar lichaam gerukt, en in een waterplas geraakt was, liggende de moeder en ’t kind, beyde levendig, omtrent een huys lengte van malkanderen verscheyde; het kind alhier gedoopt zijnde met den naam van Jacob is den 23 Mey 1648 gestorven en bij zijne ouders begraven.

[Magnus]

I heard the first one...the 2nd story is news to me, but seems somewhat possible, if albeit a bit gross.

[FAVENTIANVS]

[Magnus]

LOL!

Exactly!

[tlclark]

This is a great scene in Josephus and kind of quells the argument that he's too pro-Roman. He makes the case that the war is intolerably cruel, but that the Romans have the better case, and that all this suffering of innocents is due to the stiff-neckedness of a few.

My favorite scene is the death of Jesus of Ananias, who after years of proclaiming the fall of the city is finally struck silent by a ballista ball while on the city walls.

yeeech.

[FAVENTIANVS]

Just like Simeon de Monfort in the Cathar crusade... :roll:

[Tarbicus]

Makes Josephus a more credible source in my eyes. But then, my eyes are a tad wonky these days. hock:

[FAVENTIANVS]

Why?

[Tarbicus]

My eyes? I'm getting on a bit.

Josephus? It's just one of the most bizarre stories, and you couldn't make it up if you tried. Knock her head off, yeah. But the baby, unh-unh :?

[Jona Lendering]

It's just one of the most bizarre stories, and you couldn't make it up if you tried. Knock her head off, yeah. But the baby, unh-unh :?

No, that's something I have to disagree with. Babies are always mentioned in propaganda. There's the notorious story that Jews eat Christian babies at Pesach. Or, more recently, the story that Iraqi soldiers had destroyed the incubators in a hospital in Kuwait City - which later turned out to be untrue. So, at first I agreed with the note in my version of Josephus that this had to be untrue. But when I thought of this inscription, I thought: at least Josephus' story is within the realm of what is possible. And indeed, it gives a little bit of credibility to an author whose reputation has suffered so much.

[Tarbicus]

So how much credence do you give to the story of the starving mother within the besieged Jerusalem eating her baby? Could that be propoganda as well? It seems a bit odd considering Josephus was Jewish even though he had turned to the Romans. He certainly has no problem depicting the bravery and successes of the Jewish soldiers.

[Jona Lendering]

So how much credence do you give to the story of the starving mother within the besieged Jerusalem eating her baby? Could that be propoganda as well?

That would, until yesterday, have been my interpretation, but I am now reconsidering it.

It seems a bit odd considering Josephus was Jewish even though he had turned to the Romans. He certainly has no problem depicting the bravery and successes of the Jewish soldiers.

My personal opinion is that he never really became a Roman. He remained a Jew throughout his life, but, like Jeremiah and other authors, he came to see the capture of Jerusalem as a divine punishment, because the Jews had not behaved as they should have done. He always remained an aristocrat, whose view on Judaism was, however, different from the majority. But I am not a specialist in this field.

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Jona. It's an interesting story.

[tlclark]

On Josephus' motivations:

He's walking a fine line. I think that the death of the southern leaders at the hand of the northern leaders of the revolt is a major turning point. It marks the point where pro-roman sentiments among the elites could no longer be considered as a means of negotiating a peace. Josephus wants to place the blame on the zealot leaders, not the jewish people. I think it's possible that Josephus naively thought that Titus might have wanted to save the Temple, (but I think it's also possible that he's just spinning) but that Titus' hands are really tied. There's no one left to reason with when Titus gets there and the Temple's destruction must have been a foregone conclusion.

So he's not pro-roman as much as he is anti-zealot.

Travis

[John M McDermott]

Interesting topic.

I have always regarded ancient writers as blatantly political. Why spare Josephus? He was a shameless opportunist. I have no doubt that if the Rebels had won, he would have praised them.