Romans and Jews 427Josephus does not hold back (BJ, 2.169–177, 2.236, 2.260, 2.270, 2.272, 2.277;Ant.
18.55–62, 20.110–112, 20.122, 20.160–165, 20.177, 20.252–253).
Nor does he spare the Roman emperors. The Julio-Claudians come under Josephus’
strictures: the grim and suspicious character of Tiberius, the murderous megalomania
of Caligula, and the excesses and cruelty of Nero (BJ, 2.184–203, 2.250–251;Ant.
18.168–178, 18.225–226, 18.257–303, 19.1–27, 19.201–211, 20.154). To be sure,
the Julio-Claudians were fair game in the era of the Flavians. However, Josephus also
registered Vespasian’s slaughter of captives, merciless treatment of young and old, demo-
lition of villages and towns, and enslavement of survivors (BJ, 3.132–134, 3.336–338,
3.532–542, 4.447–448). More surprisingly and interestingly, the censures extended
even to Titus, the historian’s patron and protector. Josephus feels free to record Titus’
massacre of every male, young and old, and the sale of all women and children into slav-
ery after taking a town in Galilee (BJ, 3.298–305). He notes the general’s wholesale
slaughter of helpless defenders at Jotapata (BJ, 3.29–331). And he adds the almost gra-
tuitous observation that Titus enjoyed the spectacles in which captives in the thousands
were torn apart by wild beasts, perished through gladiatorial combat, or were consumed
by flames (BJ, 7.23, 7.37–39). That the Roman empire was a despotic entity emerges
unambiguously in Josephus’ work, and given the historian’s vulnerability, the frequent
references to Roman acts of unfeeling cruelty, subjugation of the weak and defeated, and
the exercise of despotic power are all the more remarkable. Nowhere, however, does he
suggest that this arises from inherent dispositions that distinguish Romans from other
peoples or ethnic groups. Josephus, in fact, could ascribe similar deeds of brutality and
ferocity to Jews themselves (e.g.,BJ, 2.442–456, 4.129–146, 4.305–333, 4.357–65,
etc.). Deplorable acts of inhumanity knew no ethnic bounds.
The most intense assaults on Rome by Jewish writers appear in apocalyptic texts. The
aftermath of Jerusalem’s fall and the destruction of the Temple called them forth in
striking fashion. Aside from the fifth and eighth Sibylline Oracles, Roman imperialism is
roundly condemned in another apocalypse, the so-called 4 Ezra, composed in the wake
of the Temple’s loss and alluding to the consequences of that event. The text sets forth a
series of visions vouchsafed to Ezra, here presented as a prophet (Stone 1990; Daschke
2010: 103–9; Jones 2011: 39–77). The desolation of Zion wrought by Rome appears
in the guise of the Babylonian conquest, thus wrenching the prophet who appeals to
God for explanation of the chosen people’s disaster while wicked Babylon thrives (4
Ezra, 3.1–3, 3.28–36, 4.22–25). The motif recurs in diverse ways as the lamentations
and pleas multiply, and hope rests solely in the comingeschaton(end time). A poignant
prayer records the eradication of the temple, sanctuary, and altar; the silencing of Zion’s
songs; the plundering of the ark; the defiling of all things sacred; and the delivery of
Israel into the hands of those who hated her (4 Ezra, 10.19–24). The most striking
vision occurs with the emergence from the sea of a terrifying eagle with three heads and
a dozen wings, evidently symbolizing the power of Rome. The creature has brought
suffering to all the world, but a savior in the form of a lion, also arising from the sea,
strips the eagle of its power and destroys its dominion. A spiritual voice interprets the
vision for Ezra as fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, the destruction of the fourth
kingdom, more horrific than its predecessors, but doomed to perdition when theeschaton
arrives (4 Ezra, 11–12). The text expresses unmitigated hostility to Rome, the power that
terrorizes the world, driven by arrogance, forever deceitful, trampling upon the weak and