cahn

No, I was talking about Lord Hervey, I think, but same diff. Famously Caesar in De Bello Gallico writes of himself as "Caesar" not "I" all the time.

LOL about Josephus Gary Stu'ing himself, yes. And dissing other leaders like Joannes of Gischala, whom you might recall is a wily old fox in Feuchtwanger's trilogy who'll bring Josef repeatedly down to earth once they've both survived the war.

I note that both Agrippa and Berenike get a lot of sympathy from our narrator: Berenike is described trying (in vain) to plead for the Jews in front of Florus the awful, only to get humiliated for her troubles, and Agrippa as reasonable guy trying to warn his people (characterisation Feuchtwanger will follow). By contrast, Florus is the first Roman where Josephus doesn't hold back anymore and whom he describes as the worst, ignorant, cruel, a total incompetent at his job. It didn't escape me that one of the many things he blames Florus for is the fact he, Florus, has people crucified who are Roman citizens in addition to being Jews. This is extra noteworthy for Josephus among the other cruelties because crucifixion is not only a punishment reserved for the worst but explicitly forbidden to take against Roman citizens. (Hence St. Paul, who is a Roman citizen, being decapitated while St. Peter, who is not, being crucified.) We take crucifixion as a punishment Romans use for granted for obvious reasons, so it's always good to be reminded what it meant for contemporaries.

The Roman soldiers responding to Berenike's plea buy not only torturing and executing the prisoners in front of her but going after her as well so she has to flee to the palace in order to save herself is another thing that would strike contemporaries differently than it does us, where it's not as striking as the various progroms and massacres, but Berenike is a princess - a Queen, in fact, due to her previous marriage - , and the sister of a monarch classified as an ally of the Roman people. So her being treated disrespectfully and even attacked is another shocking breach of conduct. Given Josephus' Roman and Greek readers would of course know Berenike in a different context (i.e due to her later relationship with Titus) and would distrust her for this reason, her being written as sympathetic might also be related. (Assuming "The Jewish War" was published in Vespasian's era, i.e. when Titus and Berenike were still an item. Basically a way for Josephus to signal "see! This is a noble woman, readers! Not like Cleopatra at all!) Meanwhile, I guess for Jewish readers the primary association would be with Esther, pleading for her people to foreign rulers.

I also noticed two Eleazars making their debut in this section, and assumed the first one to be the later Masada guy, only for Josephus to inform me that no, it's the second one. ("Future despot of Masada", my translation says.)

It's true, Josephus doesn't really explain why if what sensible people did was joining the Romans, he himself instead fought with the rebels. I mean, I inevitably associate Feuchtwanger's psychological explanation, but that's not said in this particular text.

Incidentally, about the argument itself (i.e. did it make sense to start a war against the superior military might of Rome): I think the Jews would always have had a geographic problem that, say, (some of) the Germans did not, in that Judea was surrounded from all sides by territory either directly occupied by the Romans or owing them tribute. By contrast, Arminius and friends had a hinterland that was free of occupation, and even after the Romans came back and did occupy territory on both sides of the Rhine again, they never went all in, and thus were were always "German" (quote unquote because the term is a bit anachronistic for the collection of tribes that was there then) territories not under Roman rule, plus later Scandinavia never was. The Jews did not have that kind of geographical safety to withdraw to, no gigantic woods, either, and thus in the long term they were always doomed to be crushed. This said, this very section of Josephus' work also demonstrates that the non-violent way - i.e. petitions, pleas and so forth - doesn't get them justice, either, if there are a bunch of abusive guys in charge, so while the text doesn't say so directly, I would argue it makes it clear why Agrippa wasn't listened to.

Another thing: this part of book 2 really thematizes the enmity between Greeks and Jews, both in Judea, Syria and Alexandria. Which reminds me that Feuchtwanger developed this into a basically its own subplot in the form of Josephus' second marriage to Dorion, with her, her father and the teacher being the main proponents of said hostility.

Do you want a separation for book 3? Because if you think you can manage, I'd suggest we do it as an entirety. It's shorter than 2, and if I have to divide it in two, we're breaking off mid siege and before Josephus can surrender to Vespasian. From what I can see, Book 3 is basically the introduction of Vespasian and Titus and the story of Josephus being besieged and eventually changing sides.