Iudaea Capta Vs. Mother Zion: the Flavian Discourse on Judaeans and Its Delegitimation in 4 Ezra

Journal for the Study of Judaism 49 (2018) 498-550

Journal for the Study of

Judaism

brill.com/jsj

Iudaea Capta vs. Mother Zion: The Flavian Discourse on Judaeans and Its Delegitimation in 4 Ezra

G. Anthony Keddie1

Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

[email protected]

Abstract

This study proposes that the empire-wide Iudaea capta discourse should be viewed as

a motivating pressure on the author of 4 Ezra. The discourse focused on Iudaea capta,

Judaea captured, was pervasive across the Roman empire following the First Revolt.

Though initiated by the Flavians, it became misrecognized across the Mediterranean and was expressed in a range of media. In this article, I examine the diverse evidence

for this discourse and demonstrate that it not only cast Judaeans as barbaric enemies of Rome using a common set of symbols, but also attributed responsibility for a minor

provincial revolt to a transregional ethnos/gens. One of the most distinctive symbols

of this discourse was a personification of Judaea as a mourning woman. I argue that 4 Ezra delegitimates this Iudaea capta discourse, with its mourning woman, through the counter-image of a Mother Zion figure who transforms into the eschatological city.

Keywords

Iudaea capta/Judaea capta − Flavian dynasty − 4 Ezra − Roman iconography − Jewish-Roman relations − Mother Zion − apocalyptic discourse − First Jewish Revolt

1ꢀ I would like to thank Steven Friesen and L. Michael White for their helpful feedback and

insightful suggestions on earlier versions of this study.

©ꢀkoninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018ꢀ|ꢀdoi:10.1163/15700631-12494235

Downloaded from Brill.com10/06/2021 11:31:49PM via free access

Iudaea C apta vs. Mother Zion

499
According to the traditional scholarly paradigm, the function of 4 Ezra was

to provide consolation, comfort, and hope2 for Judaeans during their time of trauma in the wake of the temple destruction.3 While one can scarcely doubt

that this apocalypse, which vividly describes Ezra’s distress and confusion during the Babylonian captivity following the destruction of the first temple, contains a reaction to the destruction of the second temple by the Romans, it is

not as clear why this event which occurred in 70 CE served as the motivation

for a Judaean author writing towards the end of the first century CE. Scholars have profitably sought answers by appealing to collective memory. Dereck Daschke, for instance, has argued that the text offers an apocalyptic cure for Judaeans grappling with the memory of this traumatic experience, and Philip Esler has also suggested that the text was intended to reduce dissonance caused by this dramatic event.4 Focusing specifically on the implications of

the destruction on collective identity, Hindy Najman has similarly contended

that 4 Ezra evinces “radical hope” in the form of a “reboot” focused on rewrit-

ing tradition.5
While these important studies have investigated motivations internal to Judaean communities, however, external pressures on Judaean perceptions of the destruction have received far less attention—pressures such as the development of anti-Judaean sentiments across the empire in the decades following

the destruction. In this study, I attempt to contribute to understanding some of these external pressures which helped to instigate and shape 4 Ezra’s apocalyptic discourse.6 I demonstrate, in particular, that the apocalypse delegitimates

the ongoing Flavian discourse on Judaeans while at the same time legitimating

an alternative apocalyptic epistemology and its heralds.7

2ꢀ E.g., Breech, “Form and Function.” 3ꢀ E.g., Berthelot, “Is God Unfair?”; Stone, “Reactions to Destructions.” 4ꢀ Daschke, C ity of Ruins, esp. 13–19; Esler, “Social Function.”

5ꢀ Najman, Losing the Temple.

6ꢀ A couple of recent studies have briefly noted external pressures on Judaeans following the

temple destruction: Najman mentions the Iudaea capta coins (Losing the Temple, 143) and

Grabbe notes that the fi scus Iudaicus would have been “a nagging reminder of their situation”

(“4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” 228). In a short but insightful essay, Esler recognized Roman ideology in the aftermath of the destruction, and the Iudaea capta coins in particular, as part of the historical context of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham (“God’s Honour”). This study attempts to expand and nuance Esler’s work.
7ꢀ This analysis builds on my work on the social and political functions of apocalypticism in
Revelations of Ideology. On the politics of legitimation in apocalyptic discourses, see further Carey and Bloomquist, Vision and Persuasion; Carey, “Early Christian Apocalyptic Rhetoric.”

500

Keddie

The Flavian discourse focused on Iudaea capta (“Judaea captured”) was far

more coherent and widespread than is often appreciated.8 After the temple

destruction, the Flavians initiated a discourse that cast the whole Judaean people (ethnos or gens), not just those in Judaea, as rebels against the empire. The common symbols of this discourse were pervasive across a range of media: coins, statues, monuments, and literature. The discourse also encompassed a new form of taxation that targeted Judaeans throughout the empire. Altogether, the various manifestations of this discourse linked all “Judaeans”

throughout the empire to the revolt and ensuing temple destruction in Judaea, demonstrating that Judaean identity involved much more than religion; it had social, political, and economic consequences based on ethnic allegiance to the Judaean homeland.9

This discourse was not simply top-down state “propaganda,” but was main-

tained and regenerated through the dispositions of imperial subjects, and especially elites around the empire.10 To draw on the theoretical concepts of Pierre Bourdieu, this discourse materialized through the agency of individu-

als who accepted its tenets as natural.11 The language and imagery of Iudaea

capta became incorporated into the habitus of imperial subjects, or their “set

8

ꢀ

The “Iudaea capta discourse” is the label that I use to synthesize the related develop-

ments involving attitudes toward Judaeans beginning in the immediate aftermath of the revolt. Mills offers a useful definition of discourse, “groups of utterances which seem to

be regulated in some way and which seem to have a coherence and a force to them in

common” (Discourse, 7). To this, I would only add that discourse incorporates not only

verbal utterances, but also practices. I use the term discourse in this study to describe one heuristically isolable aspect, or trajectory, of Flavian ideology—namely the Iudaea capta

discourse. In this way, I consider the relationship of discourse to imperial ideology as that of part to whole. In this study, I discuss “Judaeans” instead of “Jews,” translating forms of Ἰουδαῖος and

Iudaeus accordingly, in order to emphasize the ethnic and territorial dimensions of this designation that were so consequential in the period analyzed here. As Wendt puts it,

“I find ‘Judean’ useful precisely because Iudaeus/ Ἰουδαῖος evoked a suite of specific cultural practices associated with Judea, of which the Jerusalem temple and sacred or oracular writings were a central part. ‘Judean’ thus points to Judea in a way that Jewish does not, at a time when geography was foundational to how Romans imagined the religious practices, institutions, and paraphernalia that they understood to emanate from par-

ticular regions, regardless of where the latter were actually encountered” (Temple Gates,

87 n. 55). For similar perspectives, see Esler, C on f lict and Identity, 63–74; Mason, “Jews”; Satlow, “Jew or Judaean?”

9

ꢀ

10ꢀ For reservations about the model of state controlled “propaganda” in the study of Roman

art, see Stewart, Social History, 112.

11ꢀ For this type of approach, see further Ando, Imperial Ideology.

501 of dispositions which generates practices and perceptions.”12 The legitimation,

or misrecognition, of this discourse enabled its widespread reproduction, and

thus thereproductionanddevelopment of ethnic prejudiceagainst Judaeans.13 For Bourdieu, this misrecognition constitutes a form of “symbolic violence” against social agents because it establishes their complicity through discursive media that mask the power mechanisms and differentials of domination.14 It is only by disrupting this symbolic system of misrecognition that agents can

resist domination, although their resistance remains constrained by their

habitus.15
The focus of this investigation is one of the primary symbols of the Iudaea capta discourse, a dejected Judaean woman who represents Judaea’s defeat by the Romans. I begin this study by examining the images of this woman on coins

and statues before seeking to contextualize this symbol within the broader Iu- daea capta discourse as known from literary and material sources from around the empire. In the following section, I turn to the image of Mother Zion in

4 Ezra, arguing that the text delegitimates the Iudaea capta discourse through its empowerment of a troubled Judaean woman who serves as a counterpoint

for the disconsolate woman featured in the Flavian discourse.

1

The Symbolic Violence of the Iudaea Capta Discourse

Modern historians have often noted the uniqueness of the treatment of Judaeans in the period following the First Revolt. In particular, they have noticed the unusual level of intensity for a discourse surrounding the military suppression

of a revolt in a Roman province. Greg Woolf, for instance, explains that “Roman

emperors often played down the seriousness of provincial revolts … because provincial unrest reflected poorly on their own claims to be the guarantors

12ꢀ Introduction by Randal Johnson in Bourdieu, Field of C ultural Production, 5. See also
Bourdieu, Outline, 78–86, 143–58; Bourdieu, Distinction, 169–74. Cf. Rey, Bourdieu on Religion, 46–50; Webb et al., Understanding Bourdieu, 21–44.

13ꢀ Rey provides an apt definition of Bourdieu’s concept of misrecognition: “the affirma-

tion of the value or naturalness of any kind of social capital or social distinction as being

something more than arbitrary, i.e., as being ‘natural’ and thus ‘legitimate’” (Bourdieu on Religion, 155; cf. 54). See further Bourdieu and Eagleton, “Doxa and Common Life.”
14ꢀ See Rey, Bourdieu on Religion, 53–55. Bourdieu is careful to note that emphasizing sym-

bolic violence does not entail the oversight of physical violence. The two types of violence

can, and often do, support each other (Masculine Domination, 34–42).

15ꢀ Bourdieu, Outline, 168–71; Bourdieu, “Genèse et structure,” 319–21; Bourdieu, Acts of

Resistance, viii.

502

Keddie

of the Roman order.”16 Usually, after the suppression of a provincial revolt,

there would not be a triumph17 or a numismatic program of capta coin types.18

Rather, the provincial ruling elites would be restored or replaced and the Pax Romana would be secured again.19 The postbellum discourse about Judaea,

then, with its triumph, triumphal and honorific arches, other commemorative monuments, inscriptions, and statues, widespread and long-lasting numismatic program, special system of taxation for Judaeans, and literary representa-

tions, would appear to have involved more than a simple revolt in a province at

the margins of the empire.
In general, scholars have understood the uniqueness of this Iudaea capta discourse in two main, overlapping ways. On the one hand, its momentum and intensity are attributed to the rampant anti-Judaism of pagans and are a mat-

ter of ethnic or religious prejudice.20 On the other hand, the discourse is a consequence of the political ambition of the Flavian dynasty, and especially

Vespasian, who amplified the military success of himself and his son, Titus,

in Judaea in order to rally support as he prepared to move against Vitellius,

legitimate his family’s claim to the imperial throne, and, later, commemo-

rate the Flavian record of military prowess.21 There are problems with each of these views taken on their own. For instance, there is not a substantial record of pagan anti-Judaean literary invectives prior to the Flavian period,22 and

thus no reason to assume that ethnic prejudice was an overwhelming impetus

for the discourse. Similarly, while the theory of Flavian political ambition un-

16ꢀ Woolf, “Provincial Revolts,” 33. See also Gambash, “Official Roman Responses”; Gambash,

“Foreign Enemies”; Gambash, Rome and Provincial Resistance.

17ꢀ Based on the surviving historical record, “It was in fact the only triumph ever to celebrate

the subjugation of the population of an existing province” (Millar, Roman Near East, 79).

18ꢀ On the unusual use of capta coin types instead of restitutio or fi des types to represent

Judaeans, Cody remarks that, “Judaea became a Roman province in 6 BCE [sic.: 6 CE], and one might well expect that after this date the portrayal of Judaean Jews would adhere

more closely to the types used for provincials of the civilised Greco-Roman world. This is

not the case. Rather, these Jews continue to appear as part of compositions reserved for

conquered peoples beyond the borders of this world and their dress and pose reinforce

this characterization” (“Conquerors and Conquered,” 109).

19ꢀ See Goodman, Ruling C lass of Judaea, 235.

20ꢀ Goodman, for example, while recognizing the political strategies involved, distinguishes

this as an attack on the Jewish people and religion (e.g., Rome and Jerusalem, 442–69).
21ꢀ See especially: Overman, “First Revolt”; Millar, “Last Year in Jerusalem”; Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 424–69; Goodman, “Religious Reactions.” See also these important earlier studies: Hart, “Judaea and Rome”; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 331–88.
22ꢀ As Goodman points out, only Pompeius Trogus and one speech of Cicero (Pro Flacco) seem to have been “strongly disparaging rather than amused or contemptuous about

Jewish religious practices” prior to 70 CE (Ruling C lass, 236). See also Gruen, Rethinking the Other, 179–96, 277–307.

503 doubtedly holds merit, it cannot explain why the discourse was sustained for

so many years, even after other Flavian military victories.23 Nevertheless, each

view is partially correct. The discourse was fueled by a dynamic relationship

between Flavian ideology and popular participation in the imperial habitus. As a result, the Flavian period marked a new era in the history of Judaean rela-

tions with outsiders.

1.1

Coins

A primary source of the Flavian discourse on the Judaeans is the Iudaea capta coins. Although descriptions and images of the Iudaea capta coins are fre-

quently published and are readily accessible in technical catalogues of Roman coins,24 their historical and cultural significance has rarely been studied in relation to Flavian ideology25 or Judaean culture.26 The aim of this section is to

correct this oversight through a close examination of the habitus that shaped and was shaped by these coins.
The capta type was apparently not the first type minted by the Flavians to commemorate the victory in Judaea, although it quickly rose to prominence and became the standard type. In 2013, Gil Gambash, Haim Gitler, and Hannah

Cottonpublishedanauerus with thereverselegendIudaea recepta (seeFig. 1).27

Minted in Palestine shortly after September, 70 CE, and thus prior to (or con-

temporaneous with) the first appearance of the Iudaea capta coins, this type

features on its obverse a laureate Vespasian and the titles IMP C AESAR VESPA -

SIANVS AVG. Its reverse depicts a personification of Judaea as a woman with

crossed legs, bent arms, and her head resting on her right arm beside a palm

23ꢀ In almost the same breath, Suetonius explains how Domitian brought harsh measures against Judaeans and how he took the cognomen Germanicus after his two triumphs over Germany (Dom. 12–13). His own claim to fame was his German victories, but nevertheless

his administration maintained the Iudaea capta discourse with intensity.

24ꢀ The only specific catalogue of Iudaea capta coins that I know of is Brin, C atalog of Judaea
C apta C oinage [C J CC]. For the main technical catalogues in English, see Meshorer, Ancient Jewish C oinage [AJ C]; Carradice and Buttrey, eds., Roman Imperial C oinage II–I [RI C]; Mattingly, C oins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum [BM C RE]; Burnett et al., Roman Provincial C oinage II [RP C]. Unless otherwise noted, coins will be listed according

to their catalogue numbers instead of their page numbers.

25ꢀ The main exception is Cody, “Conquerors and Conquered.”

26ꢀ Discussions of different lengths can be found, however, in Goodman, “Coinage and

Identity,” 163–66; Hart, “Judaea and Rome”; Overman, “Jewish Revolt,” 215; Kreitzer,

Striking New Images, 135–40; Lopez, Apostle to the C onquered, 35–38; Lopez, “Before Your

Very Eyes,” 119–23.

27ꢀ Gambash et al., “Iudaea Recepta”; Gambash, Rome and Provincial Resistance, 132–39;

Gambash and Gitler, “Flavian Ambivalence,” 2017. See also Vitale, “Iudaea Recepta.” I am grateful to Gil Gambash and Haim Gitler for their help with procuring photographs of this coin.

504

Keddie

Obverse Type: Head of Vespasian, laureate, right

Obverse Legend: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG

Reverse Type: Judaea standing with legs crossed, arms bent, and head resting on her right hand to the right of a palm tree without fruit

Reverse Legend: IVDAEA RECEPTA; the Greek graffito ΛΔ or ΔΔ is in exergue

Source: Courtesy of Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn (Zurich, Switzerland) FIGURE 1 Aureus of Vespasian, 70 CE (?), Caesarea Maritima (?)

tree (without fruit) along with the IUDAEA RE C EPTA legend in exergue. De-

spite ostensible similarities, both the iconography and reverse legend of this

coin are dramatically different from that on the Iudaea capta coins that were

minted subsequently. The latter are unique in their representation of a Roman

province—Judaea—as “captured” like a foreign enemy, rather than simply rec-

onciled with the empire after a bout of disloyalty.

Unlike the Iudaea capta coins, the Iudaea recepta type is perfectly consis-

tent with the representations one would expect from the Romans following the

suppression of a provincial rebellion (like the supplicatio, provincia restituta, and provincia fi delis coin types).28 Recepta here commemorates the province

having been returned to the “embrace of empire.” The symbolism of this coin

type recalls the Asia recepta coins that Augustus issued around the same time

28ꢀ Cody, “Conquerors and Conquered.” The only known Flavian restitutio coin (BM C RE 504) was issued in Syria and seems to allude to the restoration of some eastern province or

settlement. However, I am thankful to L. Michael White for indicating to me that, even in the absence of a legend such as RP (Restitutor Pacis), some Flavian coins do contain imagery casting the Flavians as the restorers of peace to the entire oikoumenē. See, e.g., RI C

2.110 (80–81 CE), in which the obverse has Titus sitting in repose beside his shield while holding an olive branch and the reverse depicts the Flavian Amphitheater.

505 as his Aegypto capta coins in the 20s BCE.29 Asia had already been a Roman

province, so the Asia recepta coins indicate that the province’s loyalty had been

restoredafterit temporarily showedallegiancetoAntony insteadof Augustus.30 Egypt, however, was captured (hence capta) and officially made a province by Augustus only after Augustus defeated Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium.31
With the Iudaea recepta coin type, the Flavians thus declared the Roman suppression of the First Revolt as a successful reaffirmation of the status quo

in the Levant. Imperial agents only minted the Iudaea recepta coins for a short

time before producing various types of the Iudaea capta coinage en masse. Both the Iudaea recepta and Iudaea capta types were official Flavian responses

to the suppression of unrest in Judaea. The latter, however, betrays the beginnings of a new and newly antagonistic phase of Roman-Judaean relations stimulated by Flavian political interests rather than the actual circumstances of the First Revolt.