Film review: The Jewish War
Sunday, July 29th, 2012 09:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lethargic_manIt is now Tisha BeAv, the anniversary (to a first approximation) of the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and the Second by the Romans, and I spent last night listening to אֵיכָה (the Book of Lamentations) and קִינוֹת (dirges), by candlelight in a ruined synagogue.
A few days, out of the blue, I got an email from someone in Melbourne, who was preparing a talk on the Destruction of the Temple by the Romans, asking what I thought of the following BBC dramatisation of The Jewish War:
My response:
Bearing in mind I am by no means an expert on this period of history: having read Antiquities and War, I remember only bits:
It seems mostly accurate (and I've just noticed Martin Goodman's name appears on the closing credits), but there are bits that are elided, and in so eliding, change the perspective. For example, the cause for the outbreak of war was not taxation, but antisemitism by the Gentiles of Caesarea, building a factory mostly blocking access to the local synagogue, then having a man sacrifice animals on an large overturned pot in front of the entrance on Shabbos. The Jews complained to Florus, the procurator, but Florus was only interested in manufacturing excuses for war. That was when he broke into the Temple in Jerusalem and seized their funds.
Another example: Josephus was not captured immediately after the Romans took Jotapata, as portrayed in the programme, but three days afterwards, by which time they had destroyed the city. And though he was given away by a woman of his party captured by the Romans, as shown in the programme, he had supplies to last for many days (though these were, in truth, prepared by the other people he found there: he came across them by chance).
The Roman defeat at Beth-Horon early in the war only occurred after the Romans had conquered much of the countryside, and reached the outskirts of Jerusalem. If Cestius Gallus had pursued his advantage and besieged Jerusalem there and then, much of what later happened could have been avoided—after all, the moderates were still in charge of the Jerusalem government, not yet having been killed by the zealots. But for unknown reasons, he did not, and withdrew, and it was on his withdrawal that his troops were massacred at Beth-Horon.
The only other thing that struck me notably about it is that the Second Temple never contained the Ark of the Covenant, which you see the Romans removing at the end. That vanished the best part of a thousand years earlier. (I think it's supposed to be the Ark of the Covenant; it's got what look like cherubs on top, and it's too bulky to be the Table of the Shewbread. It might just be the incense altar, though.)
Also, historians are divided as to whether the Temple was really destroyed against Titus's orders, or whether this was just Josephus trying to paint Titus, who was by now his patron, in a good light.
![[Josephus]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Josephusbust.jpg)
Josephus notes
A few days, out of the blue, I got an email from someone in Melbourne, who was preparing a talk on the Destruction of the Temple by the Romans, asking what I thought of the following BBC dramatisation of The Jewish War:
My response:
Bearing in mind I am by no means an expert on this period of history: having read Antiquities and War, I remember only bits:
It seems mostly accurate (and I've just noticed Martin Goodman's name appears on the closing credits), but there are bits that are elided, and in so eliding, change the perspective. For example, the cause for the outbreak of war was not taxation, but antisemitism by the Gentiles of Caesarea, building a factory mostly blocking access to the local synagogue, then having a man sacrifice animals on an large overturned pot in front of the entrance on Shabbos. The Jews complained to Florus, the procurator, but Florus was only interested in manufacturing excuses for war. That was when he broke into the Temple in Jerusalem and seized their funds.
Another example: Josephus was not captured immediately after the Romans took Jotapata, as portrayed in the programme, but three days afterwards, by which time they had destroyed the city. And though he was given away by a woman of his party captured by the Romans, as shown in the programme, he had supplies to last for many days (though these were, in truth, prepared by the other people he found there: he came across them by chance).
The Roman defeat at Beth-Horon early in the war only occurred after the Romans had conquered much of the countryside, and reached the outskirts of Jerusalem. If Cestius Gallus had pursued his advantage and besieged Jerusalem there and then, much of what later happened could have been avoided—after all, the moderates were still in charge of the Jerusalem government, not yet having been killed by the zealots. But for unknown reasons, he did not, and withdrew, and it was on his withdrawal that his troops were massacred at Beth-Horon.
The only other thing that struck me notably about it is that the Second Temple never contained the Ark of the Covenant, which you see the Romans removing at the end. That vanished the best part of a thousand years earlier. (I think it's supposed to be the Ark of the Covenant; it's got what look like cherubs on top, and it's too bulky to be the Table of the Shewbread. It might just be the incense altar, though.)
Also, historians are divided as to whether the Temple was really destroyed against Titus's orders, or whether this was just Josephus trying to paint Titus, who was by now his patron, in a good light.
Josephus notes
