Scan barcode
brampton's review against another edition
4.0
What a rollicking good read! I was expecting dry old accounts of numerous battles, which are certainly in there, but there's also the scandalous account of Herod's domestic arrangements and the internecine fighting within Jerusalem with stacks of gory details. Absolutely riveting!
jammasterjamie's review against another edition
5.0
Wow, what a treasure of antiquity - I mean, how many incredibly detailed first-hand accounts of the Jewish uprising against the Romans that took place almost two thousand years ago have you read? Because for me, this is the only one and it was a wild ride, baby! The person who recommended this to me positioned it thusly: "Imagine if the British had one the Revolutionary War and Benedict Arnold got to write the official history of it", and that pretty much nails it - Josephus was a Jewish general who switched sides after being captured, and therefore is able to provide the rationalizations of both sides of the conflict. Murder, mayhem, machismo, and malicious double-crosses abound! Drama seeps out of every page and the descriptions are lively. Having been to Israel a few times, it was especially fun (and disturbing) to think of the blood that once flooded the streets where my own feet have walked, and the ending at Masada shook me - It's one thing to hear a tour-guide tell you something, but to read about it from someone who was part of the war? Wow.
My only problem with this book was my own issue - I have problems with difficult names, and this tome is full of them, and many of them repeat so I had a hard time keeping some people straight. Antiochuses abound and Judases come at you willy-nilly, but eventually with the help of the time-line in the Appendix, I was able to get that sorted.
My favourite thing was putting this in context with Antony and Cleopatra who play a small part in the drama, and also the complete and total lack of Christ (who was active during the time of this very complete narrative) was kind of cool, but expected as Christianity was still just a small Jewish cult at the time of Josephus's writing.
All in all, if you're into war and history, you can't go wrong with this book.
My only problem with this book was my own issue - I have problems with difficult names, and this tome is full of them, and many of them repeat so I had a hard time keeping some people straight. Antiochuses abound and Judases come at you willy-nilly, but eventually with the help of the time-line in the Appendix, I was able to get that sorted.
My favourite thing was putting this in context with Antony and Cleopatra who play a small part in the drama, and also the complete and total lack of Christ (who was active during the time of this very complete narrative) was kind of cool, but expected as Christianity was still just a small Jewish cult at the time of Josephus's writing.
All in all, if you're into war and history, you can't go wrong with this book.
kahawa's review against another edition
5.0
I enjoyed this a lot more than Antiquities of the Jews. The story of Jerusalem's fall was much more detailed and epic than I had expected. Sometimes Josephus' details are eyebrow raising - the speech at Masada? Give me a break.... Makes one wonder about all the other speeches he relates.
But, from what I understand, his details that are verifiable by archaeology have generally panned out more or less accurate.
Josephus discusses the Sicarii somewhat, and I've read that some authors think that this might be etymologically the same as Iscariot - ie, perhaps Judas Iscariot was modelled after the despised and traitorous Sicarii. I think the hypothesis reasonable, because it sounds like the Sicarii were well known for greed and treachery and being the source of Jerusalem's destruction. I'll quote one of Josephus's descriptions at length:
It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it [Masada]. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; for then it was that the Sicarii got together against those that were willing to submit to the Romans, and treated them in all respects as if they had been their enemies, both by plundering them of what they had, by driving away their cattle, and by setting fire to their houses; for they said that they differed not at all from foreigners, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost, and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans before such a contention. Now this was in reality no better than a pretense and a cloak for the barbarity which was made use of by them, and to color over their own avarice, which they afterwards made evident by their own actions; for those that were partners with them in their rebellion joined also with them in the war against the Romans, and went further lengths with them in their impudent undertakings against them; and when they were again convicted of dissembling in such their pretenses, they still more abused those that justly reproached them for their wickedness. And indeed that was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices, insomuch that no kind of evil deeds were then left undone; nor could any one so much as devise any bad thing that was new, so deeply were they all infected, and strove with one another in their single capacity, and in their communities, who should run the greatest lengths in impiety towards God, and in unjust actions towards their neighbors; the men of power oppressing the multitude, and the multitude earnestly laboring to destroy the men of power. The one part were desirous of tyrannizing over others, and the rest of offering violence to others, and of plundering such as were richer than themselves. They were the Sicarii who first began these transgressions, and first became barbarous towards those allied to them, and left no words of reproach unsaid, and no works of perdition untried, in order to destroy those whom their contrivances affected.
Note also that Josephus identifies a certain Judas Sicarii as a prominent ancestor and source of the Sicarii's actions. Again, the themes here are greed, and treachery.
Of note also is the tale of the Stone:
Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, The Stone Cometh so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow.
What language did they speak in Jerusalem at this time? Many say Aramaic, such that 'stone' would be 'kepha'. But some (Buth et al) argue that Hebrew was still used, and this phrase, "stone is coming!!" would then have been, "Eben ba!!" Not far off from "Ben ba!", ie, "[the] son is coming!!" How deeply into defenders' psyches did this terrifying stone lodge, and how well known did this phenomenon become? Had all who heard about the siege also heard about the constant fear and cries of the Stone coming to crush people with no warning?
The renowned and often repeated Jewish prophetic motif of the Stone which the builders rejected is quoted by Mark, Matthew and Luke, but Mark, the first to write and who likely didn't use Josephus, adds nothing to it, while Matthew and his copier Luke add a whole new idea - "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." The son is coming....
Where did Matthew get the idea of the Stone falling on and crushing people? Because it's definitely a post-Mark addition. Perhaps from the infamous Stone of the destruction of Jerusalem (and this idea doesn't depend on the language used in Jerusalem, just the concept).
Interestingly, the only story that I remember Josephus repeating from Antiquities (IIRC) was about a certain man called Jesus. This story must have really stuck in the psyche of those who were a part of the fall of Jerusalem, and it's worth pasting here for those who have never heard that there was a man named Jesus from a 'blue collar' background, who went around Jerusalem during a major feast time prophesying woe several years before the fall of Jerusalem and the temple, who was handed to the Romans by the Jewish leaders, was whipped but never cried out against his tormentors nor answered their interrogations, and died in Jerusalem while carrying out his prophetic ministry:
[T]here was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple,7 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.
How interesting that Josephus writes twice, extensively, about this Jesus, but never wrote about another Jesus who allegedly rocked the holy land and prophesied the destruction of the temple (I don't buy that any part of the (completely unjosephan) Testimonium Flavianum is authentic. But if it is, why then is it so completely overshadowed by this much longer, repeated, conspicuous, but far less interesting tale?).
So, while I found Antiquities to be a bit of a chore, the Jewish War kept me interested throughout and I learned a lot. I could also picture many of the events happening having visited most of the places involved.
But, from what I understand, his details that are verifiable by archaeology have generally panned out more or less accurate.
Josephus discusses the Sicarii somewhat, and I've read that some authors think that this might be etymologically the same as Iscariot - ie, perhaps Judas Iscariot was modelled after the despised and traitorous Sicarii. I think the hypothesis reasonable, because it sounds like the Sicarii were well known for greed and treachery and being the source of Jerusalem's destruction. I'll quote one of Josephus's descriptions at length:
It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it [Masada]. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; for then it was that the Sicarii got together against those that were willing to submit to the Romans, and treated them in all respects as if they had been their enemies, both by plundering them of what they had, by driving away their cattle, and by setting fire to their houses; for they said that they differed not at all from foreigners, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost, and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans before such a contention. Now this was in reality no better than a pretense and a cloak for the barbarity which was made use of by them, and to color over their own avarice, which they afterwards made evident by their own actions; for those that were partners with them in their rebellion joined also with them in the war against the Romans, and went further lengths with them in their impudent undertakings against them; and when they were again convicted of dissembling in such their pretenses, they still more abused those that justly reproached them for their wickedness. And indeed that was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices, insomuch that no kind of evil deeds were then left undone; nor could any one so much as devise any bad thing that was new, so deeply were they all infected, and strove with one another in their single capacity, and in their communities, who should run the greatest lengths in impiety towards God, and in unjust actions towards their neighbors; the men of power oppressing the multitude, and the multitude earnestly laboring to destroy the men of power. The one part were desirous of tyrannizing over others, and the rest of offering violence to others, and of plundering such as were richer than themselves. They were the Sicarii who first began these transgressions, and first became barbarous towards those allied to them, and left no words of reproach unsaid, and no works of perdition untried, in order to destroy those whom their contrivances affected.
Note also that Josephus identifies a certain Judas Sicarii as a prominent ancestor and source of the Sicarii's actions. Again, the themes here are greed, and treachery.
Of note also is the tale of the Stone:
Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, The Stone Cometh so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow.
What language did they speak in Jerusalem at this time? Many say Aramaic, such that 'stone' would be 'kepha'. But some (Buth et al) argue that Hebrew was still used, and this phrase, "stone is coming!!" would then have been, "Eben ba!!" Not far off from "Ben ba!", ie, "[the] son is coming!!" How deeply into defenders' psyches did this terrifying stone lodge, and how well known did this phenomenon become? Had all who heard about the siege also heard about the constant fear and cries of the Stone coming to crush people with no warning?
The renowned and often repeated Jewish prophetic motif of the Stone which the builders rejected is quoted by Mark, Matthew and Luke, but Mark, the first to write and who likely didn't use Josephus, adds nothing to it, while Matthew and his copier Luke add a whole new idea - "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." The son is coming....
Where did Matthew get the idea of the Stone falling on and crushing people? Because it's definitely a post-Mark addition. Perhaps from the infamous Stone of the destruction of Jerusalem (and this idea doesn't depend on the language used in Jerusalem, just the concept).
Interestingly, the only story that I remember Josephus repeating from Antiquities (IIRC) was about a certain man called Jesus. This story must have really stuck in the psyche of those who were a part of the fall of Jerusalem, and it's worth pasting here for those who have never heard that there was a man named Jesus from a 'blue collar' background, who went around Jerusalem during a major feast time prophesying woe several years before the fall of Jerusalem and the temple, who was handed to the Romans by the Jewish leaders, was whipped but never cried out against his tormentors nor answered their interrogations, and died in Jerusalem while carrying out his prophetic ministry:
[T]here was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple,7 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.
How interesting that Josephus writes twice, extensively, about this Jesus, but never wrote about another Jesus who allegedly rocked the holy land and prophesied the destruction of the temple (I don't buy that any part of the (completely unjosephan) Testimonium Flavianum is authentic. But if it is, why then is it so completely overshadowed by this much longer, repeated, conspicuous, but far less interesting tale?).
So, while I found Antiquities to be a bit of a chore, the Jewish War kept me interested throughout and I learned a lot. I could also picture many of the events happening having visited most of the places involved.
brynhammond's review
4.0
I've read half. It has downtime. I'm here not for the particulars of the history (that are dully told with names I can't keep track of) but for the firsthand horror-shop that I hear is the siege of Jerusalem.
What I didn't know about is book one: the tragedy of Herod the Great. It's King Lear in real life, with scenes from Macbeth because he murders record numbers of his kindred -- but it isn't his fault. I felt sorry for him, and he felt sorry for himself. Don't miss the putrefaction of his privy member at the end.
The violence of the times outdid my expectations. Through most of this I thought, who'd be a public figure here? or merely an inhabitant of these cities? When investigative torture is so easy and massacre so common, wouldn't you head for the hills?
I'll return for the siege of Jerusalem, when I feel I need to read about a siege. It's hard to wade through the interim material, though.
In public domain ebook, translation by William Whiston. I liked this translation at once: "Now at the time when this great concussion of affairs happened..." Turns out to be 18th century.
What I didn't know about is book one: the tragedy of Herod the Great. It's King Lear in real life, with scenes from Macbeth because he murders record numbers of his kindred -- but it isn't his fault. I felt sorry for him, and he felt sorry for himself. Don't miss the putrefaction of his privy member at the end.
The violence of the times outdid my expectations. Through most of this I thought, who'd be a public figure here? or merely an inhabitant of these cities? When investigative torture is so easy and massacre so common, wouldn't you head for the hills?
I'll return for the siege of Jerusalem, when I feel I need to read about a siege. It's hard to wade through the interim material, though.
In public domain ebook, translation by William Whiston. I liked this translation at once: "Now at the time when this great concussion of affairs happened..." Turns out to be 18th century.
More...