Herbert Danby, ed. and trans., The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 200.

Herbert Danby, ed. and trans., The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 200.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Since Jacob Bernays, Über die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der classischen und biblischen Studien (Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1861), 48-61, nearly all scholars accept that Josephus’s account of Titus’s conciliatory attitude toward the temple is untrue. The bibliography on this topic is enormous. Tommaso Leoni, “ ‘Against Caesar’s wishes’: Flavius Josephus as a Source for the Burning of the Temple,” jjs 58 (2007): 39-51, esp. 41-45, contains a well-written, detailed summary. Leoni, for his part, tends to the minority opinion that lends credence to Josephus’s depiction. See also: Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983), 206-210; Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 441. Steve Mason, “What is History? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War,” in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. Mladen Popović; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 155-240, esp. 226-28, expresses additional misgivings regarding the approach of Bernays and his successors, particularly in respect to their reliance on Sulpicius Severus. More fundamentally, however, he asserts the impossibility of determining which depiction to accept and applies this to most of Josephus’s historiography (ibid., 228-39). Recently, however, Schwartz, Reading, 136-39 has come to endorse the majority view. For a rebuttal of Leoni’s arguments see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, “Between Fact and Fiction: Josephus’ Account of the Destruction of the Temple,” in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (ed. Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 53-63.

Since Jacob Bernays, Über die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der classischen und biblischen Studien (Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1861), 48-61, nearly all scholars accept that Josephus’s account of Titus’s conciliatory attitude toward the temple is untrue. The bibliography on this topic is enormous. Tommaso Leoni, “ ‘Against Caesar’s wishes’: Flavius Josephus as a Source for the Burning of the Temple,” jjs 58 (2007): 39-51, esp. 41-45, contains a well-written, detailed summary. Leoni, for his part, tends to the minority opinion that lends credence to Josephus’s depiction. See also: Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983), 206-210; Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 441. Steve Mason, “What is History? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War,” in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. Mladen Popović; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 155-240, esp. 226-28, expresses additional misgivings regarding the approach of Bernays and his successors, particularly in respect to their reliance on Sulpicius Severus. More fundamentally, however, he asserts the impossibility of determining which depiction to accept and applies this to most of Josephus’s historiography (ibid., 228-39). Recently, however, Schwartz, Reading, 136-39 has come to endorse the majority view. For a rebuttal of Leoni’s arguments see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, “Between Fact and Fiction: Josephus’ Account of the Destruction of the Temple,” in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (ed. Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 53-63.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Joshua Levithan, Roman Siege Warfare (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013), 142.

Joshua Levithan, Roman Siege Warfare (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013), 142.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Fergus Millar, “Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 101-28, esp. 101-2. Regarding the theological aspects, see: Helmut Schwier, Tempel und Tempelzerstörung. Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66-74 n. Chr.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 308-37.

Fergus Millar, “Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 101-28, esp. 101-2. Regarding the theological aspects, see: Helmut Schwier, Tempel und Tempelzerstörung. Untersuchungen zu den theologischen und ideologischen Faktoren im ersten jüdisch-römischen Krieg (66-74 n. Chr.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 308-37.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Adalberto Giovannini, “Die Zerstörung Jerusalems durch Titus: Eine Strafe Gottes oder eine historische Notwendigkeit?” in Contra quis ferat arma deos? Vier Augsburger Vorträge zur Religionsgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit: Zum 60. Geburtstag von Gunther Gottlieb (ed. Pedro Barceló; München: Vögel, 1996), 11-34, esp. 30, raised similar objections against Josephus’s narrative (I thank the anonymous reviewer for this reference).

Adalberto Giovannini, “Die Zerstörung Jerusalems durch Titus: Eine Strafe Gottes oder eine historische Notwendigkeit?” in Contra quis ferat arma deos? Vier Augsburger Vorträge zur Religionsgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit: Zum 60. Geburtstag von Gunther Gottlieb (ed. Pedro Barceló; München: Vögel, 1996), 11-34, esp. 30, raised similar objections against Josephus’s narrative (I thank the anonymous reviewer for this reference).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

On Jewish battle tactics see Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 120-25. Especially noteworthy are their successes in face-to-face combat (pp. 281-85).

On Jewish battle tactics see Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 120-25. Especially noteworthy are their successes in face-to-face combat (pp. 281-85).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mason, “What is History,” 220-21 alludes to this problem as a possible reason to question Josephus’s credibility. See also I. M. J. Valeton, “Hierosolyma Capta,” Mnemosyne 27 (1899): 78-139, esp. 135.

Mason, “What is History,” 220-21 alludes to this problem as a possible reason to question Josephus’s credibility. See also I. M. J. Valeton, “Hierosolyma Capta,” Mnemosyne 27 (1899): 78-139, esp. 135.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Translation according to Mason, “What is History,” 224.

Translation according to Mason, “What is History,” 224.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

David Asheri, “The Art of Synchronization in Greek Historiography: The Case of Timaeus of Tauromenium,” Scripta Classica Israelica 11 (1991/1992): 52-89, esp. 54. Recently Denis Feeney, Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), dealt extensively with this issue. Feeney examines various types of synchronisms. See pages 148-60 in particular regarding the significance of day synchronisms.

David Asheri, “The Art of Synchronization in Greek Historiography: The Case of Timaeus of Tauromenium,” Scripta Classica Israelica 11 (1991/1992): 52-89, esp. 54. Recently Denis Feeney, Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), dealt extensively with this issue. Feeney examines various types of synchronisms. See pages 148-60 in particular regarding the significance of day synchronisms.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

This is evinced by Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam: Critical Edition, Commentary, and Introduction (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:439-41.

This is evinced by Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam: Critical Edition, Commentary, and Introduction (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:439-41.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Milikowsky, Seder Olam, 2:556.

Milikowsky, Seder Olam, 2:556.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 105.

Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 105.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Yosef H. Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988), 22.

Yosef H. Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988), 22.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History (2nd ed.; trans. W. R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). On the relationship between Eliade’s thesis and the affinity between myth and ritual see Gruenwald, Rituals, 114, 116.

Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History (2nd ed.; trans. W. R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). On the relationship between Eliade’s thesis and the affinity between myth and ritual see Gruenwald, Rituals, 114, 116.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation