A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and Huitink 2012). The prologue mentions in this connection “the extent and nature of both parts of the Galilee [i.e. Upper and Lower Galilee], the borders of Judaea, the special features of the country, its lakes and springs” (BJ 1.22; on the region see also Chapter 22). Jerusalem is highlighted as the central location, with its walls and defense systems, the plan of the temple complex and the inner sanctuary, “the measurements of these buildings and the altar being all precisely stated” (1.25–26). Frequently Josephus offers detailed descriptions of the places where the Romans fought the Jews: Iotapata/Yodfat (3.158–160), where Josephus was arrested, Joppa (3.419–421), the Lake of Gennesareth (also called Sea of Galilee, Lake Tiberias, and Kinneret) and the area surrounding it (3.506–521), Gamala (4.5–8), Jericho and its vicinity (4.451–485), and last but not least Masada (7.280–294). The description of Gamala at the beginning of book 4, a town that joined the rebels together with the cities of Tiberias and Tarichaea, is an interesting example. Like most descriptions of towns in the War, it coincides with the moment the Roman troops, led by Vespasian, are about to march on it. Josephus remarks that Gamala refused to surrender because it relied upon “the natural difficulties of its position” (4.4) and then briefly describes its location: “from a lofty mountain there descends a rugged spur rising in the middle to a hump, the declivity from the summit of which is of the same length before as behind, so that in form the ridge resembles a camel” (4.5). The simile of a camel, which fits and matches the town’s name (gāmāl means “camel” in Hebrew), enables those unfamiliar with the location to visualize the scene. Next Josephus gradually zooms in to the town itself: first to the ravines that surround it on all sides, partly made deeper by the besieged people themselves under the leadership of Josephus; then to the houses “built against the steep mountain flank and astonishingly huddled together,” and finally to the southern part of the city, which, by virtue of its greater height, forms a citadel. Then follows another awe-inspiring piece of figurative language: the city “seems to be suspended in air and to be falling headlong upon itself” (4.7). Josephus also mentions that there is a spring inside the town and rounds his description off with the remark that he himself had fortified the town with walls and secured it further by mines and trenches (4.10). The description of Gamala is clearly selective, because it focuses on the defense system of the town and its ability to withstand a siege. The subsequent narrative about the siege and defeat of Gamala refers again to elements from the initial description of the place, which explains the Romans’ strategic and military difficulties and highlights the dramatic end for the Jews: the ravines which “had been excavated to a vast depth beneath the citadel” (4.79) became a deadly trap, causing the death of many inhabitants, who plunged into them with their wives and children rather than surrendering themselves (4.11–83).

      Another elaborate description concerns the Lake of Gennesareth with its surrounding area, which reminds one of Herodotus’s descriptions of exotic regions. Josephus draws attention to the unique species of fish that live in the lake and to the strange fact that the river Jordan runs straight through the middle of it (3.508–509). He includes a short excursus on the sources of the river Jordan. The surrounding district is “remarkable for its natural properties and beauty” (3.516). It supplies all kinds of fruit for no less than ten months a year and is being watered by a spring which some hold to be a branch of the Nile (3.516–520). The description implies that by his conquest Vespasian managed to turn an exotic nation at the edge of the inhabited world into a well-organized Roman province. Josephus follows Vespasian’s campaign step by step and also describes Peraea, Samaria, Judaea, and the kingdom of Agrippa (3.35–58). As indicated already in the prologue, the conflict culminates in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, described in detail in books 5 and 6.

Josephus’s most elaborate description of all concerns Jerusalem and its temple (BJ 5.136–247). Jerusalem is not only of central importance for thematic reasons (Tuval 2013), but the city also forms the center of Josephus’s geographical system. Unlike other descriptions of cities in Josephus the passage is written in the past tense (cf. BJ 2.188–191; 3.35–58, 70–109, 158–60, 506–521; 4.3–8, 451–475, 476–485, 530–533, 607–615). Probably, Josephus wanted to point out that the city no longer existed during the time of writing (Mader 2000: 155–156; Chapman 2005: 298; Van Henten and Huitink 2012: 210; Gelardini 2014: 89–100). Josephus describes Jerusalem by starting with its periphery and then moving on to the center. He first mentions the geographical setting of the city on two hills as well as the hill on which the temple was built (5.136–141) and then continues to outline the circuit of its three walls with their towers, which are described in great detail (5.142–183). Moving on to the center, the narrator finally turns his attention to the temple itself and the adjacent Antonia fortress (5.184–247; Gussmann 2008: 327). Josephus describes the temple in great detail at the height of its splendor, presumably the way it looked just before it was destroyed. Gradually zooming in, the narrator guides an anonymous witness from the outer court to the inner courts and finally into the sanctuary itself. He ends with a description of the altar, the officiating priests, and even the high priest’s garments. Measurements are given throughout, the functions of each component part are clarified, and the costly materials used are mentioned time and again, with an emphasis on color and the shiny metal surfaces. For example, the exterior of the temple, which “wanted nothing that could astound either mind or eye,” is said “to have appeared to strangers approaching from a distance like a snow-clad mountain,” while people close to it had to avert their eyes because they were blinded by the gleaming gold with which it was covered (5.222–223). The narrative function of the elaborate description of Jerusalem and its temple in book 5 is to enhance the reader’s awareness of what was at stake when the siege of Jerusalem began and of what was lost when the temple burned down because of a fire that might have been caused by the Jews themselves (6.249–253; further discussion: Barnes 2005: 132–135; Rives 2005: 146–148). Josephus apparently wanted to preserve and visualize the memory of Jerusalem and its temple as a detailed monument in writing (Gelardini 2014: 89–100).

      Friendly Kings of the Romans

Josephus is an important source about persons who belonged to local elites in the Near East and acted as so-called friendly kings of the Romans (Braund 1984; Jacobson 2001; Kokkinos and Politis 2007; Kaizer and Facella 2010; see also Chapter 31). Herod the Great, to whom Josephus devotes several books, is the historian’s prime example of such a king, but he does mention other friendly kings. Several friendly kings are mentioned in a report of a visit of five kings who came to visit Agrippa I in Tiberias (in 43 or 44 CE), because they admired him, as Josephus says: King Antiochus (IV) of Commagene, King Sampsigeramus (II) of Emesa, King Cotys of Armenia Minor, Agrippa’s brother Herod (Herod IV), King of Chalcis, and King Polemon (II) of Pontus (AJ 19.338–442). Together these kings controlled territories stretching from Judaea and Idumea in the South to Chalcis and Emesa within Syria, up to Commagene and Pontus by the Taurian Mountains and the Black Sea in the North – all important areas along the Roman border. These six kings were all installed by Claudius and obviously had common interests. They were also connected to each other by marriage arrangements. Agrippa’s daughter Drusilla and his brother Aristobulus (Aristobulus V), for example, were both married to children of King Sampsigeramus II (AJ 18.135; 20.139; Schwartz 1990: 138; Kokkinos 1998: 315, 321). However, Marsus, the Roman governor of Syria, happened to be around and he was not amused by the meeting in Tiberias and required the kings to return to their territories without delay. Perhaps he was afraid of a pact against Rome or he was worried about the Parthian frontier, for which he was responsible but also needed the loyal support of these kings. Another explanation would be personal: the Syrian governor may have considered Agrippa to be a threat to his own position as most important Roman in the East (Schwartz 1990: 137–140; cf. Kokkinos 1998: 300).

      Josephus’s Herod narratives provide valuable information about friendly kings along the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire and their interactions with their patrons. Herod the Great’s official status in the empire was rex sociusque et amicus (“king, ally, and friend”). Originally, Herod was a commoner who took over the power from a well-established СКАЧАТЬ