426 Erich S. Gruen
the walls of the Temple, and actually to enter the Temple itself in 63BCE. The event had
been preceded by internal strife among the Jews, upon some of whom the responsibil-
ity for this Roman violation could be placed (Jos.Ant. 14.37–79). The author of the
Psalms of Solomon accurately reflects the circumstances. That collection of 18 psalms,
composed some time between 63BCEand 70CE, was the product of a devout Jew or
Jewish sect. They set the event in long-standing Jewish tradition of interpreting calamity
as the will of God punishing sinners through the intermediary (however wicked) of a
foreign invader (de Lange 1978: 258–60; Wright 1985: 639–49). Pompey (not actually
named in the text) is himself described as an evildoer who broke down the walls, tram-
pled the sacrifices underfoot, and defiled the Temple. He was, however, no more than an
instrument of God, delivering divine sentence upon those Jews who had profaned their
faith. And he would get his own just deserts. The author knows and records the igno-
minious death of Pompey on the shores of Egypt (PsSol, 2.1–30; 8.11–22). The poems
deliver a severe verdict upon the Roman general as arrogant, hybristic, and brutal (PsSol,
2.6–8, 28–30; 7.11–13; 8.19–21, 17.13). He laid waste the land, showed no mercy
to his foes, and mowed down young and old alike. The author seeks divine assistance to
drive the invaders from the land, to shatter their insolence, and to eradicate the lawless
nations (PsSol, 17.11–14, 22–25). The use ofta ethne(“the nations”) here, of course,
signifies only “gentiles.” The wickedness and arrogance of the conqueror has nothing to
do with Roman ethnicity.
Roman Power and Jewish Interpretation
Josephus, writing in Rome and under Roman patronage after the fall of Jerusalem in
70 CE, naturally sought an acceptable explanation for that disaster that might, at least
partially, exonerate his new patrons. As with the author of the Psalms of Solomon, he
found the time-honored formula serviceable: the conqueror simply carried out the divine
will, an instrument of God. The speech that Josephus sets in the mouth of Agrippa who
argued against the Jews taking up arms against Rome declared that Yahweh had moved
to the side of Rome (BJ, 2.390; cf. 2.360). And Josephus, in his own voice, justifies his
surrender to the Romans by citing his prayer to the Lord affirming that the divine will
coincided with the passage of Fortune to Rome (BJ, 3.351–354). God, who has passed
imperial power from nation to nation, has now set it in Italy (BJ, 5.367–368, 5.412;
Life, 17; Price 2005: 116–17).
There is, however, another aspect to Josephus’ portrayal of Rome that has not received
so much notice. Unlike the authors of I Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon, the
Jewish historian, who was dependent on Roman protection, had to be more cautious
and subtle in the depiction of his powerful hosts. Nonetheless, Josephus’ account had its
decidedly darker side as well (Gruen 2011a: 155–61). He pulls no punches in narrating
the ruthlessness and terror exercised by Romans on the battlefield and elsewhere. That
feature exists from the beginning. Pompey’s capture of the Temple in 63BCEincluded
the butchering of Jewish priests in the course of pouring libations and conducting rituals
(BJ, 1.150;Ant. 14.66–67). After 20 years, Cassius reduced Judean cities to servitude, as
Josephus puts it (BJ, 1.221–222;Ant, 14.275). After Judea became a Roman province,
a series of governors conducted acts of repression, widespread executions, and atrocities.