THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

This page intentionally left blank

The Jews Against Rome

Susan Sorek
 Continuum UK, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
Continuum US, 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038

www.continuumbooks.com

Copyright © Susan Sorek 2008

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission
from the publishers.

First published 2008

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978 1 84725 248 7

Typeset by Pindar New Zealand

Printed and bound by MPG Books Ltd, Cornwall, Great Britain

 Contents

Introduction vii
1 The Historical Background: 198 bc–ad 66 1
2 Josephus and his Histories 15
3 The Causes of Revolution According to Josephus (I) 27
4 The Causes of Revolution According to Josephus (II) 39
5 Insurrection: ad 65–66 45
6 The March on Jerusalem 55
7 Josephus in Galilee 63
8 The Siege of Jotapata 75
9 Final Conflict in Galilee 85
10 Civil War in Judaea 93
11 Civil War in Rome 105
12 The Battle for Jerusalem 115
13 The Final Conflict 125
14 The Zealots’ Last Stand 137
15 Epilogue 149
Notes 155
Bibliography 163
Index 167
To David Noy, friend, colleague and mentor.
 Introduction

Scholars have concluded that in comparative terms the Jewish war, culminating
in the siege of Jerusalem, and destruction of the Temple was the major event in
Roman military history. The war demanded a massive concentration of forces
and was the longest siege in the whole of the imperial period. Lasting roughly
five months it took four legions, detachments of two others, 20 infantry cohorts,
eight mounted alae and 18,000 men supplied by four independent kings to effect
a victory. In fact the forces that were committed to the siege were larger than those
deployed for the invasion of Britain in ad 43.
The revolt was not inspired by any ideological objection on the part of the
Jews towards Rome, nor any Roman anti-Semitism. There were a variety of
underlying causes that helped spark the revolt; social tensions, bad procurators,
the divisions amongst the ruling class, the rise of banditry and poor harvests, but
perhaps the most significant feature of all was the apocalyptical storm brewing
over first-century Palestine.
Of all the messianic movements one in particular drew the most attention;
the Essene sect, the community that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, based their
calculations on the end of days on a prophecy from the book of Daniel. Josephus
says that the major impetus inspiring the Jewish revolt against Roman rule was
an ‘oracle found in the sacred scriptures’. This oracle effectively said when the
time came ‘one from their own country would become ruler of the world’. The
Essenes calculated the year ad 26/7 ushered in the messianic age. There was never
a time previously quite like it, and there has never been one since; two messiahs,
one king one priest would rule over Palestine. The fervour with which many
fought against the might of the greatest power of the ancient world could only
have come from such beliefs; that the end of days was nigh.
All revolutions change history, whether they are successful or not and the
Jewish war against Rome in ad 66–70 is no exception. Even though the revolution
did not succeed, the ramifications were enormous and still impact upon the
modern-day world. The revolt had a profound influence on the development of
Judaism and Christianity, to which modern times bear witness. Had this revolt
not occurred, then two major religions would simply not exist, at least certainly
not in their present form. The structures and theologies of these religions owe a
great deal to the crisis provoked by the revolt and destruction of the Temple in
viii INTRODUCTION

Jerusalem. For Judaism especially the destruction was an axial moment in the
formation of rabbinic Judaism, enabling the Pharasaic sect to reorganize Judaism
as a conformative religion. Christianity also emerged in its Pauline form, which
attested Jesus to be, as one author has succinctly put it, ‘repackaged as a saviour
God dispensing opiate’.1 By the late second century ad Christian writers saw the
destruction of the Temple as definitive proof of God’s desire that the Christian
church was to be the successor of the ‘old religion’, and its doctrines to constitute
the New Israel.
The other exceptional fact about the Jewish war is the extraordinary amount
of information to have survived and for that we have to thank one man, Flavius
Josephus, a Jew of Pharisaic origin and eyewitness to the events he describes. Born
Joseph ben Mattiyahu, of aristocratic descent he played a key role in many of the
events during the conflict with Rome. He held a command in Galilee during a
pivotal stage of the revolt, was captured by the Romans, and eventually through
his skilful manipulation of events became a client and friend to the future Roman
emperors, Vespasian and his son Titus, working as a translator and mediator
during the fateful siege of Jerusalem: to the Jews he became a traitor. He left his
native Judaea with the Roman forces, never to return but to spend the remainder
of his life as a Roman citizen in Rome changing his name to Flavius Josephus,
writing accounts both for himself and for his Roman masters on the Jewish war.2
In his works Jewish War (referred to hereafter as JW), Life and Jewish Antiquities
(JA) he pursues a number of questions and agendas; as writer and historian he
is both defender of Jewish traditions and the Jewish people to a predominately
Roman audience. He often depicts the people of Judaea and Galilee as noble,
fervent in their commitment to God and generally good citizens.3
However the veracity of his work is often called into question because of the
discrepancies in his accounts of the same events in JW and Life. Many scholars
argue these occur because of the pressures he was subjected to during the 30 years
he lived and wrote in Rome.4
On the other hand some have attempted to play down the discrepancies,
and one in particular has argued that it is ill-founded to use Josephus as a
completely reliable historical source because he was, for personal reasons, intent
on explaining the most important events in his life which occurred between ad
66–70. In doing so he searched the annals of his society to find the causes for the
disaster. From his perspective it would appear there had to be some explanation,
whereas from a modern perspective we could conclude there was nothing
inevitable about what happened, that it was just an accident.5 However each
attack upon Josephus’ history undermines the study of the subject altogether. Yet
others have proposed that the rich, mostly priestly Judaean elite’s involvement
in the revolt was an important factor in ‘encouraging Rome to treat the uprising
as a full scale rebellion and provoking the splits that plagued the short lived
 INTRODUCTION ix

independent Judaean state’.6 Seemingly the Judaean ruling class was driven into
revolution because they were unable to control pressures, mainly economic, from
the rest of Judaean society.
The revolutionary zeal the revolt had inspired did not entirely die out; there
were still pockets of resistance in many corners of the Roman Empire. Some
Zealots escaped to Alexandria in Egypt where they attempted to create a new
base of operations. They were rounded up by the citizens and handed over to
the Romans. The old zeal was still apparent as the captives continued to defy
the Romans even under torture. At Cyrene another revolutionary, Jonathan, a
weaver by trade, led a number of poorer citizens out into the desert promising
to show them signs and portents. Once again a military force was sent to capture
them, Jonathan was hunted down and taken to Rome where he was tortured and
burnt alive.
There were further disturbances between the years ad 115–117 in the cities of
the Diaspora, in Cyrene, Egypt and Cyprus and finally once again in Palestine.
The new Jewish messiah Simon bar Kochba (Son of the Star), supported by
the greatest sage of the time, the radical Rabbi Akiva, rose up against Roman
occupation. The rebels seized back the Holy city of Jerusalem, appointed a new
High Priest and restored Temple ritual. Many exiles now returned to Palestine,
and the countryside was once again home to guerrilla bands, the caves and desert
fortresses played host to rebel defenders. This time it took the Romans four years
and eight legions to crush the revolt. Sadly the details of this rebellion are scant,
unlike the earlier Jewish war, whose story is contained in this work, following the
accounts of its star witness Josephus.
Where there is some disparity in his work an attempt has been made to shed
some light on the possible reasons for this, using modern scholarly research.
Nevertheless there is still much that is not precise, even the archaeological
record cannot fill the gaps in knowledge. Recent excavations of some of the sites
mentioned in the text are discussed in Chapter 15 and show in some instances
Josephus’ words are true, but the final judgement concerning the causes and
consequences of the war must be left to the reader. What is true is that the war
against Rome was an axial moment in Jewish history, and in consequence for the
history of the Western world.
This page intentionally left blank
 1

The Historical Background: 198 bc–ad 66

In 198 bc Antiochus II of Syria (Seleucid dynasty, named after its founder, one
of Alexander the Great’s generals) finally won control of Palestine from Ptolemy
V of Egypt. Ten years later his victorious armies were confronted by the Roman
legions at Magnesia, in Asia Minor. Their defeat and the harsh peace dictated
by Rome, the rising power in the Mediterranean, shook the Seleucid dynasty
to its foundations. During the next three reigns of the Seleucid kings, a second
confrontation with Rome was feared. In order to combat this threat a spirit of
unity in the heterogeneous kingdom needed to be fostered, and that could only
be achieved through an appeal to the religious tenets of Hellenic society.
Under Seleucid rule the cities had complete autonomy in all internal affairs,
the only limitations on their liberty were the supervision of a royal official, and
to conform to the king’s policy on all external issues. The Seleucids had always
been zealous Hellenizers in their many dominions; King Antiochus IV, who
adopted the title Epiphanes (God manifest), had two aims, to religiously unify
his kingdom by instituting the worship of Olympian Zeus, and to unify the
Hellenistic world by conquering Egypt and supplanting the Ptolemaic dynasty
with his own.
Palestine came under Seleucid control for almost two centuries and during
their rule Hellenization in the country advanced rapidly bringing with it all the
amenities of Greek life, especially athletics, which attracted many of the younger
elements including some of the younger priests. There had always been tension
between the conservative High Priests and those who promoted the more
worldly Hellenistic values. The Hellenizers managed to persuade Antiochus IV
to remove the High Priest Onias IV, and appoint his brother Jason, but some of
the more extreme elements of this faction were not satisfied and tried to depose
Jason and replaced him with one of their own group, a man named Menelaus,
whose qualifications for the role were questionable to say the least. He managed
to persuade the king and his advisers that the Jewish nation was willing to adopt
Greek culture and beliefs. However, while Antiochus was in Egypt the deposed
Jason made an attempt to take Jerusalem. This gave Antiochus the excuse he
needed to send in his troops and once the city was taken the process of his
‘religious unification’ began. The Temple treasures were appropriated, the sacred
precincts turned over to the cult of Zeus and Dionysus-Sabazios, and the altar
2 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

defiled by sacrificing swine on it. The Hellenizers built a separate city on the
western hill opposite the Temple and set up a polis with the intention of naming
it ‘Antioch in Jerusalem’. A fortress was constructed called the Acra, which faced
and partly commanded the Temple and contained a garrison of royal troops.
However, it soon became apparent that Menelaus had deceived Antiochus,
for the Jews had no desire to accept Greek gods and a Greek altar set up in
the Temple, and offered strong resistance. At first the extremists amongst
the Hellenizers tried to wipe out this resistance, the practice of Judaism was
forbidden and the Jews ordered to make sacrifices to the alien gods. Many Jews
fled the city, but many remained and defied the order; consequently they were
put to death. This was the first religious persecution in recorded history and open
rebellion soon followed.
The Maccabean rebellion against Antiochus began not in Jerusalem but in the
town of Modein, which belonged to the toparchy of Lydda, which lay adjacent
to Judaea. When the king’s officials arrived there to ‘compel the men to sacrifice’,
Mathathias the Hasmonean, a resident priest, killed the attendant apostate and
the king’s officer proclaiming that ‘if all the nations that are in the house of
the King’s domain hearken unto him . . . yet and I and my sons will walk in the
covenant of our fathers’.1 Mathathias together with his five sons fled into the
hills and from there conducted a guerrilla war, tearing down heathen altars and
pursuing, as they referred to them the sons of pride, the Hellenizing Jews. They
were soon joined by a company of Hasidaeans, a group of pious men who were
now ready to fight for the faith. Shortly afterwards Mathathias died and his third
son, Judas Maccabaeus, who was a natural strategic genius, took his place as
leader. Under his leadership the rebels soon overran the whole of Judaea, cutting
off the Syrian garrison and its supporters in Jerusalem.
The king mounted four operations to relieve the blockade of Jerusalem.
The first attempt failed, so a second attempt was made under the command of
Apollonius, governor of Samaria, to whom Judaea was administratively subject;
this too resulted in failure when Apollonius was routed and slain in the ascent
of Lebonah. This alarmed Seron, commander of the royal forces of Coele-Syria
under which Samaria came; he marched down through Beth Horon but was
defeated in a surprise ambush by Judas. However, by this time Antiochus had
decided to assert his authority in Persia; before setting out he nominated his
kinsman Lysias as regent of the lands west of the Euphrates. Lysias assembled
an army with Ptolemy, Nicanor and Gorgias as generals. They set up camp near
Emmaus at the foot of the mountains that surrounded Jerusalem. Judas and his
rebel army took up position half way between Jerusalem and the enemy so when
the generals decided to split their forces and send them into the hills Judas readily
took advantage and attacked the troops left at Emmaus, capturing the camp and
pursuing the enemy as far as the royal fortress at Gezer. He then returned to face
 T H E H I S T O R I C A L B A C KG R O U N D : 1 9 8 b c – a d 6 6 3

the rest of the enemy but Gorgias declined battle and made a hasty withdrawal.
Lysias now took the field and arrived at the borders of Judaea from the
south confronting Judas at Beth-zur. The details of what actually happened are
fragmentary but apparently Lysias was pushed back and Judas was free to march
into Jerusalem and take possession of the Temple. The shrine was cleansed and
sacrifices were resumed. The day, 25th of Kislev 165 bc and the following seven
days, are still commemorated by Jews all over the world as the Feast of Dedication
or ‘Chanukah’.
Judas, with the help of his brother Simon, then undertook the rescue of the
Jews of western Galilee who were being oppressed by the Gentiles. The Jews of
Gilead were evacuated to Jerusalem, and many Jews living in Galilee were brought
to Judaea. Judas had successes over his enemies east of the Jordan and Idumaea,
and wreaked vengeance on the people of Jaffa for their treatment of the Jews
there, issuing a similar threat to the people of Jamnia.
Meanwhile Antiochus IV died while on campaign in Persia and his young
son Antiochus V Eupator was proclaimed king. In order to establish Seleucid
supremacy another campaign was launched against Judaea. As before the
armies clashed at Beth-zur, this time Judas was forced to withdraw and retired
to Gophna. The young king and his regent succeeded in taking Jerusalem and
destroyed the Temple fortifications. Eljakim (Alkimos) was appointed High
Priest, and managed to win the support of the Hasidaeans who recognized him
as a descendant of Aaron, the man of peace. The Syrian general Nicanor was
stationed in Jerusalem to enforce the new regime.
Nevertheless, Judas and his supporters continued the struggle for an
independent nation believing religious freedom could only be achieved in this
way. Ironically, they were assisted in their efforts by Rome, who were looking for
ways in which to undermine the Seleucids who they regarded as the strongest of
the Greek states in the east. They made an alliance with Judas, and took up the
Jewish cause.
However, the Seleucid dynasty was showing signs of internal division.
Antiochus IV had superseded his nephew Demetrius, the son of his elder brother
Seleucus IV. Demetrius who believed he had more of a legitimate claim to the
throne came to Antioch and deposed Antiochus V. This marked the beginning of
the end for the Seleucid dynasty; from this point onwards the struggle for power
between their descendants gradually eroded the Seleucid Empire.
Judas managed to defeat Nicanor in battle, but Demetrius dispatched his
general Bacchides to Judaea and Judas was killed in the battle at Eleasa. His
death was mourned by the whole nation who now found themselves in great
peril. Those rebels that had survived the battle chose the youngest son of
Mathathias, Jonathan, to be their leader; he decided they should withdraw to
the Judaean wilderness, where they managed to hold out for three years. The
4 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Syrian commander fortified Judaea with a series of linked citadels, but Jonathan
managed to gain a foothold in the area at Beth-basi near Bethlehem. Finally the
divisions within the Seleucid dynasty had led to a mounting crisis and Bacchides
was forced to withdraw his forces from Judaea. Jonathan was able to settle at
Michmash as ‘de facto’ ruler of Judaea (with the exception of Jerusalem and Beth-
zur). Finally in 152 bc he obtained permission from Demetrius I to transfer his
seat to Jerusalem and was nominated High Priest by Demetrius’ rival Alexander
Balas, another pretender to the throne, who claimed to be the son of Antiochus
Epiphanes and therefore legitimate heir.
For ten years Jonathan was caught up in Seleucid power politics, he often
backed the weaker of the pretenders to the throne; he enlarged his kingdom and
built up a substantial army, which at the battle of Jamnia in 147 bc proved to be
one of the strongest armies south of Seleucid dominions. He became Lord of the
old province of Judaea, supplemented by the districts of Lydda, Arimathaea and
Apharaima by Accaron and other lands beyond the Jordan. He was treacherously
executed by the Syrian general Tryphon, and was succeeded by Simon, the last of
the five Hasmonean brothers.
Simon managed to raze the Acra in 143 bc, so finally delivering Jerusalem
from its foreign oppressor. He also managed to annexe Jaffa enabling Judaea to
have access to the Mediterranean Sea. He took Gezer and made a secure road to
Jerusalem and finally in 141 bc was granted independence from Seleucid rule
obtaining the right to mint coinage. Simon was assassinated in 135 bc by his
son-in-law, and succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus I. Shortly after the accession
of Hyrcanus I Judaea was attacked once more by Antiochus VI Sidetes, and after
another siege of the city that lasted for a year, Antiochus was able to impose
his terms, which were the return of Jaffa and Gezer to Seleucid authority, and
breaching of the walls of Jerusalem.
The victory was, however, short-lived for when Antiochus VI died in 129
bc, John Hyrcanus I quickly resumed his conquests. The majority of the Greek
cities along the interior were already free from Seleucid rule so John began his
campaigns in the mountainous areas of Judaea and Samaria. The first cities to
fall were Medeba and Heshbon beyond the River Jordan; with these cities under
his control he now straddled the international trade route from Damascus to
the Red Sea. He then turned his attention towards the Samaritans, whom he
subdued (although they kept their own character under the Hasmoneans). In
south Judaea the Idumaeans were obliged to adopt Judaism, and it became fixed
policy throughout the rest of Hasmonean rule to attach new areas to Judaea
through religious links. In the north of the country the city of Samaria came
under attack, and after a long siege John overran the Beth-Shean Valley and the
inner Carmel region.
However, towards the end of his reign there was an internal rift. The Pharisees,
 T H E H I S T O R I C A L B A C KG R O U N D : 1 9 8 b c – a d 6 6 5

who had succeeded the Hasidaeans, the priests who had fought alongside Judas
Maccabaeus, became disturbed by the increasing amount of Hellenization taking
place. For John and his followers this had been a necessary evil, something
not readily understood by the masses; these differences of opinion would in
the coming years escalate bringing about the destruction of the newly won
independence.
John died in 104 bc, and was succeeded by his son Judah I Aristobulus, who
reigned for one year. In that year Galilee was taken from the Ituraeans and
soon after its annexation became wholly Jewish. The next Hasmonean king was
Alexander Jannaeus, another son of Jonathan. In contrast to Judah he had a
long reign (103–76 bc), under his rule Palestine was almost completely unified
for the first time since the reign of King David. In a series of expeditions to the
south-west and east, the north-west and east, the Jewish independent state was
extended and included the Carmel and its coast, the Jordan Valley up to Dan
and Paneas, and nearly all of the Transjordan Mountains. Jannaeus occupied the
northern bank of the Dead Sea making it a domestic lake of Judaea; took Gaza
and lands as far as the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish).
Jannaeus fought many battles but surprisingly never won one: after every
defeat he resumed the struggle until he eventually vanquished his enemy and to
aid him he used Greek mercenaries. His maritime policy also amounted to little
more than piracy. The Greek cities were given the option of adopting Judaism
or leaving their city; the archaeological record shows that presumably Jews later
resettled many of the deserted cities.
His internal policy presented even more difficulties, it seems he alienated the
Pharisees by his assumption of the trappings of kingship, which implied the
abolition of the constitutional cooperation between prince and heber (the council
of elders who represented the people). His adversaries rose up in insurrection
and called on the Seleucid king; the outcome was a battle between Jewish rebels
allied with the Syrian army versus the Greek mercenaries of a Jewish monarch.
Jannaeus eventually won, and succeeded in reconciling most of his people. He
died in the field of battle besieging the town of Ragba, east of Jordan: on his
deathbed he asked his Queen and successor, Salome Alexandra to make peace
with the Pharisees.
With his death the Hasmonean dynasty came to end. Although the Hasmoneans
had saved the Jewish nation from extinction, they failed to reconcile the conflict
between Greek culture and the spiritual needs of the Jews, an issue that would
have disastrous results in the ensuing crisis that was looming in the east.
The end of Seleucid rule brought in its wake a period of general anarchy
throughout the east. Some oriental rulers, for example Tigranes I of Armenia
and Mithridates VI of Pontus continued their endeavour to establish oriental
rule throughout the Hellenistic world. By this time the Romans were firmly
6 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

entrenched in the east, having established the province of Asia in 133 bc. Their
rule was not well received because of the general greed and oppression displayed
by their governors and merchants, so the Greeks of Asia joined forces with
Mithridates in his war against Rome in 88 bc. However, Rome was also struggling
with internal conflicts, the social and political upheavals that would herald the fall
of the Republic. Nevertheless Rome prevailed and repelled Mithridates’ assault in
Greece; they also vanquished his allies, the pirates of Cilicia and Crete. But in the
second Mithridatic war (83–81 bc) Mithridates was successful. In a third conflict
with Rome in 74 bc he obtained the services of Roman officers of the Marian
faction (those who allied themselves to Marius the Roman general who marched
against Rome in 86 bc after the civil war with Sulla), and at first prospered but he
was persuaded to take refuge with Tigranes I of Armenia and both were beaten.
In 66 bc Pompey the Great, the general and future protagonist of Julius Caesar,
defeated him on the Euphrates and Mithridates was forced to flee to the Crimea,
where he finally took his own life.
Tigranes had by 74 bc managed to extend his authority as far as Acre, but he
also saw his capital destroyed. In 64 bc the army of Pompey the Great entered
Antioch, and Rome became in effect master of the eastern Mediterranean.
One of the consequences of Pompey’s victory was the reduction of Syria to a
Roman province. All the rulers who had divided the Seleucid territories amongst
themselves now faced the threat of the might of Rome.
The Jews were perhaps the least well equipped to deal with this threat. The
reign of Queen Alexandra (76–67 bc) was spent in a succession of quarrels
between the Pharisees who now held power, and Alexandra’s kinsmen. This
conflict was personified in the rivalry between John Hyrcanus II, who succeeded
his father as High Priest and Jannaeus’ younger son, Judah Aristobulus II, who
represented the Sadducees (the elitist group from whom many High Priests were
selected), who were antagonistic to the Pharisees. When Hyrcanus II succeeded
Queen Alexandra civil war broke out. Aristobulus forced his brother to abdicate,
so Hyrcanus found the Idumaean, Antipater (a member of the Hasmonaean
dynasty) a ready ally, together they fled to the Nabataen king Aretas, who agreed
to help Hyrcanus on condition all the conquests made by Jannaeus south-east of
the Dead Sea would be returned to the Nabataeans. While the army of Hyrcanus
and Aretas were besieging Jerusalem the Roman general Scaurus arrived with
orders from Pompey to put an end to the fighting. They withdrew to Philadelphia
and here Aristobulus routed them at a place called Papyron, near the Jordan.
It was at this juncture Roman intervention in Judaean affairs took a decisive
turn. Pompey summoned the brothers to Damascus and after listening to their
arguments decided in favour of the weaker Hyrcanus. Aristobulus tried to resist
the decision and was captured by the advancing Roman army at Alexandrium, in
the Jordan Valley. Despite this setback his supporters continued their resistance
 T H E H I S T O R I C A L B A C KG R O U N D : 1 9 8 b c – a d 6 6 7

on Temple Mount: finally in 63 bc the Roman legions stormed the sanctuary.

Pompey had two aims in Judaea; the first was to establish Roman supremacy
and the second to reinforce Hellenism by revitalizing the Greek cities. However,
Rome had no rigid policy when it came to dealing with subjugated nations.
Syria was annexed, the Nabataeans, whose territory was remote and difficult to
occupy, lost Damascus but were allowed to retain the remainder of the territory;
the Ituraeans had to relinquish their coastal cities, but were given more domains
in the Bashan; the Jews however were harshly dealt with. They were allowed
to keep only Judaea and eastern Idumaea, Galilee and Jewish Peraea east of
Jordan: all the cities taken by Hyrcanus and Jannaeus regained their former
status. Pompey, in order to make the cities east of Jordan better able to defend
themselves joined them, together with Scythopolis, into a League of Ten Cities
(Decapolis). Hyrcanus, together with his minister Antipater II, was left to rule
the rest of the Jewish territory.
The Greek cities on the coastal plain and east of the Jordan were restored,
but those inland took a little longer, only Samaria and Scythopolis were re-
established. Pompey’s successor was Gabinius and he was plagued by revolts
from Aristobulus and his son Alexander, which took him three long campaigns
to suppress. He tried unsuccessfully to split Judaea into five separate regions,
Jerusalem, Jericho, Ammathus, Adoraim and Sepphoris, each to be governed by
its own Sanhedrin (council).
In Rome the civil war that ensued between Pompey and Julius Caesar resulted
in Antipater aiding Caesar in his campaign in Alexandria, Egypt. The victorious
Caesar elevated Hyrcanus to the rank of Ethnarch, and Antipater was made
Administrator General (Epitropos) of Judaea. Caesar also returned Jaffa and the
Jezreel Valley to the Jews but ignored the pleas of Aristobulus’ sons to reinstate
them. Antipater appointed his sons Phasael and Herodes (Herod) as governors
of Jerusalem and Galilee, and after his assassination in 42 bc they continued to
rule under Roman protection. Herod was ruthless; his illegal slaughter of Galilean
rebels brought him before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for trial, but he managed
to defy his judges and went unpunished.
Pompey’s settlement lasted until the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 bc.
The anarchic period that followed saw a number of vying Roman factions ruling
in the east. First the Republicans, then the triumvirs Antony and Octavian (later
the emperor Augustus), finally Antony and Cleopatra, all had one aim, money
and power. Amid all the confusion the Hasmonaean party and the ambitious
Idumaeans both saw opportunities to advance themselves. Mathathias Antigonus
the surviving son of Aristobulus II tried to attack Herod in 43 bc but lost the
battle. Mark Antony appointed Phasael and Herod as tetrarchs under Hyrcanus,
which virtually gave them control of the whole of Judaea.
The greatest threat to Rome at this time came from their old enemies Parthia
8 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

(Persia); the Parthians launched an attack invading Syria and Judaea in 40 bc,
and were joined by a band of Jews from the Carmel and the Drymos forest in
the Sharon. Phasael killed himself, and Hyrcanus was mutilated which rendered
him unfit to be High Priest. Herod tried to hold out against them but lacked an
adequate army, and with the eventual fall of Jerusalem, Antigonus was crowned
king. Herod withdrew to the desert fortress of Masada, by the shores of the Dead
Sea. He took his family there, including his wife-to-be Mariamne, the daughter
of Alexander and granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, whom he wed in 37 bc the same
year that Jerusalem fell to his forces, and leaving his family behind escaped to
the Nabataeans.
Herod made his way to Rome. The Romans decided Hyrcanus was unfit to rule
and Antigonus viewed as a usurper therefore the throne of Judaea was apparently
vacant. Octavian and Mark Antony proposed Herod should be named king of
the Jews, the Senate concurred. To endear him to his subjects and also to add to
the non-Jewish element in his realm, western Idumaea and the domains of the
Samaritans were annexed. Although Herod counted his reign from his investiture
as king and ally of Rome in 40 bc, three years were to elapse before he could
finally establish his claim.
Herod landed at Ptolemais (Acre) and launched his campaign. He managed
to take the port of Jaffa, and continued on to Masada to free his family. He then
mounted a siege against Jerusalem during which time he also managed to seize
Sepphoris (39–38 bc). From Galilee he joined Mark Antony at Samosata on the
Euphrates, an act of loyalty that won him great praise and support from Rome.
In 37 bc he finally crushed all resistance in Jerusalem and the city fell to him,
although the number of people killed in the process was excessive: Antigonus
was put to death by Mark Antony and Hasmonaean rule ended.
The task that now faced Herod was no easy one for he had to strengthen his
position with the Jews. The Hasmonaean dynasty had been a popular one, as
they had represented national independence, with their demise as well as the
purging of the aristocracy, the original Sadducees, the Jews had little more than
contempt for their new king, the ‘Edomite slave’ as they called him. Although he
thought of himself as a Jew he was not of priestly descent therefore not eligible
to hold the office of High Priest, so he chose men for this position whom he
could manipulate, and whom he regularly replaced, so creating a new Sadducean
aristocracy, one that was totally faithful to the king.
However, the greatest threat came not from within his own lands but from
the eastern Mediterranean. Antony and the Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII were
hoping to restore the Pharaonic dominion of Asia; Herod lost the coastal area as
well as the palm groves of Jericho when Antony decided to give them to Cleopatra.
Herod was in a precarious position and could have lost everything. However, in
31 bc the Roman west, led by Octavian (later the emperor Augustus), defeated
 T H E H I S T O R I C A L B A C KG R O U N D : 1 9 8 b c – a d 6 6 9

Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium, off the Greek mainland.
Herod did not take part in the battle but went to Rhodes and managed to
persuade Octavian his loyalty to Antony in the past was a guarantee that, from
that moment on, he would be loyal to Octavian. Octavian was soon to be styled
Augustus and conferred in the position of ‘First Among Equals’, in effect master of
the Roman world. Herod’s bold move had paid off for he received confirmation
of his kingship and later, when Augustus made a visit to Judaea, after the final
annexation of Egypt, he granted him the entire coast from Gaza to Strato’s Tower
(Caesarea) except Ascalon, together with the towns of Gadara and Hippos, east
of the Jordan. In 23 bc he was assigned large areas beyond the Jordan up to and
including the Hauran Mountains, and three years later was given the Golan as
far as the source of the Jordan at Paneas.
Augustus’ victory brought with it an influx of wealth and prosperity to the
empire from which Herod greatly benefitted. The middle years of his reign saw
the political and economic consolidation of his rule. His buildings activities
were prolific, made possible by the great fortune he had amassed from taxes and
business deals such as the exploitation of the Cyprus copper mines.
Herod’s kingdom comprised two units, first the ‘king’s country’ ruled directly
through governors of the provinces of Galilee, Judaea and Peraea. Each province
was divided into toparchies, which were 20 in total; each toparchy consisted
of several villages. Also in this unit were the royal estates in the Jezreel Valley,
the military districts beyond Jordan and the colonies of veterans at Gaba and
Heshbon.
The second unit consisted of the Hellenized cities, some of which were grants
from Rome to Herod; the others being cities that Herod had established or
revived. The most famous of these were the port of Caesarea, Samaria (Sebaste)
inland and another Caesarea at Paneas. All of these cities enjoyed local autonomy,
although they were supervised by one of the king’s officials.
In Judaea, Herod acted with a double purpose. He naturally wanted to provide
for his own security, so he built or rebuilt the fortresses of Masada, Hyrcania
and Herodium, a fortified palace in Jerusalem and the Antonia fortress, which
commanded the Temple Mount. Herod also needed to show he was a worthy
monarch and to this end he undertook the refurbishment of the Temple.
Although Herod’s enthusiasm ‘for all things Greek’ cannot be underestimated,
as a client king of Rome, Herod was, to a certain extent, duty bound to prepare
his subjects for assimilation into the Roman Empire using Graeco-Roman
culture as his main instrument. In 28/27 bc Herod introduced certain Hellenistic
activities to Judaea, for example the Actian games, celebrating Augustus’ defeat
of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. The games included musical compositions,
horse races, athletic contests, wild beast contests, and were to be held every four
years in Jerusalem. Three buildings were erected to accommodate these events, a
10 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

hippodrome in the city on the south side of the Temple, and two others outside
the city walls. To some Jews however, this was seen as a step too far towards
the Hellenization of their country, especially the gymnastic and wrestling
competitions. This sort of activity had been a major political issue at the time
of the Maccabean war, over a century earlier. It was regarded as symbolic of the
pagan Hellenism that it had been the purpose of the rebellion to eradicate. This
was something that pious Jews felt very strongly about.
Herod also wanted his buildings to be magnificent but was faced with the
problem of depicting human or animal forms on the sculptured reliefs, a practice
that would flout the second commandment. So, instead he unadvisedly adorned
some of his buildings with representations of trophies, containing armour and
weapons, also anathema to the Jews. Herod’s schemes aroused so much animosity
that an attempt was made, unsuccessfully, to assassinate him.
Therefore, within his own kingdom Herod had little scope for self-expression
so had to look to the Greek cities to the west of Palestine and beyond. In Samaria,
the corridor between the Greek cities of the west and Judaea to the east, Herod
founded the city of Sebaste, named after his patron, the emperor Augustus.
Caesarea, on the coast, was another city that benefited his kingdom greatly,
opening up a new port that allowed access to fresh trading routes.
Herod was probably one of the greatest benefactors of the ancient Near East;
his list of benefactions to gentile cities is long and imposing. Josephus tells
us Herod’s benefactions within Palestine included the Temple of Augustus at
Paneion, near the River Jordan, the foundation of Agrippium, Antipatris, Cypros
and Phasaelis.2 He provided gymnasia for Tripolis, Byblos and Damascus, and
numerous buildings in Berytus, Tyre and Sidon, not counting numerous other
benefactions to cities in the Greek east. Yet, it appears he won the gratitude of
the Greeks alone. Josephus tells us his own people continued to despise him.
The Pharisee Sameas advocated the acceptance of his rule only on the grounds
of divine punishment.
Within Judaea Herod had to confine himself to other acts, pious ones. He
is credited with the construction of the Patriarchs’ tombs in Hebron as well as
building a memorial to Abraham two miles from Hebron. However, his greatest
achievement was the rebuilding of the Temple, which commenced circa 20 bc,
some two years after Herod’s initial announcement of the project. Not everyone
was ready to accept that this project would come to fruition; Herod was required
to prove the feasibility of it before it could commence. To allay fears he further
promised not to pull down any of the Temple buildings until the materials for
rebuilding were in place.
He employed thousands of workmen on this enterprise and trained priests
as masons and carpenters since the Law prohibited laymen from entering the
Temple building itself. Although, according to Josephus, Herod repeatedly
 T H E H I S T O R I C A L B A C KG R O U N D : 1 9 8 b c – a d 6 6 11

referred to this work as a pious enterprise his Jewish subjects seem to have been
unconvinced of his sincerity and felt his real motivation for the building of the
Temple was remorse he felt for killing so many Jewish scholars. As one scholar
has pointed out:

This seems to emphasise the dichotomy of his era. His place in the Roman Empire
depended upon his governance of the Jews; he felt bound therefore to respect the
religious views of the main body of them. On the other hand, he was convinced that if no
compromise were reached between Judaism and Hellenism there would be a catastrophe
and the first victim would be his dynasty and all that he had striven to accomplish. Hence
the bridging of the gap between the Jews and the world about them was his principal
aim.3

Herod lived to a ripe old age, nearing 70 when he was struck down by a series
of horrific ailments. The end of his reign was as bloody as the beginning having
executed several of his sons. He left Antipater to succeed him, however five days
before his death he also had him executed. Herod died unmourned by his family
and hated by the whole nation. He was buried in Herodium.
With the death of Herod in 4 bc a series of countrywide revolts broke out. The
royal army with the assistance of Varus the Roman governor of Syria managed
to quell them. The problem of succession was settled in Rome when Augustus
divided the realm between Herod’s remaining sons. To the eldest Archelaus he
granted Judaea, Samaria and the coastal cities, including Caesarea but not Gaza.
The second son, Herod Antipas, governed two purely Jewish but separate areas:
Galilee and Jewish Transjordan (the Perea). The third son Philip Herodes ruled
mainly over the gentile areas east of the river. Archelaus lasted for only nine
years and was finally deposed; Roman prefects then ruled his territories. Antipas
remained until ad 39 when he was deposed by the emperor Caligula. Philip died
peacefully earlier.
In the final years before the war with Rome, Jews had become divided in their
attitude to Roman authority. The three main groups comprised the Herodian
party and the Sadducees, the Temple aristocracy, and the Zealots. The Herodians
were prepared to go further when it came to adopting Hellenistic culture than the
Sadducees whose status depended on the Temple and its ritual. However, both
were aware that collaboration with Rome offered the best chance of survival, for
them as well as their people. The Zealots were the uncompromising faction who
fervently believed in Jewish nationalism, and in between the two extremes were
the Pharisees a minor group not included in the main parties.
The grandson of Herod, Herod Agrippa I was the spokesman of compromise.
He had been brought up in Rome in the imperial household and succeeded in
winning the favours of the emperors Caligula and his successor Claudius. In ad
12 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

37 Caligula gave him the lands that once belonged to his uncle Philip, and when
Antipas was deposed he was also given his lands. Claudius bestowed Judaea and
Samaria on him in ad 41; this amounted to nearly all the lands originally held
by his grandfather. However, his rule was short-lived as he died three years later.
Claudius pronounced his 17-year-old son Agrippa II his successor but as he was
still a minor, procuratorial rule was reinstated in Judaea.
Rome did not fully grasp the complexity of the country or of its people.
According to the classification referred to by Strabo, the ancient geographer
Judaea belonged to the third class of imperial provinces, i.e. those placed under
governors of equestrian rank.4 It was those provinces where a strong individual
culture or lack of it, which made the usual implementation of regulations
impossible, that were controlled by a junior officer of equestrian rank. Egypt
is a prime example of such a province but the same criteria applied to those
territories that were inhabited by semi-barbarous peoples.5
From the start the choice of procurator appears to have been inept: Pilate was
responsible for two major infringements that fuelled the fires of discontent. First,
when he brought the legionary standards into the Holy city of Jerusalem, seen
as an act of sacrilege, and second when he proceeded to remove money from
the Jerusalem Temple to help finance the building of an aqueduct, which led to
violence. Nevertheless, there were some outstandingly able procurators, such as
the renegade Jew Tiberius Alexander, however the last two procurators Albinus
and Florus were rapacious and incompetent and provoked mounting unrest.
Finally the majority of the nation chose open warfare against Rome.
The amount of contemporary material available for Roman Palestine far
surpasses that for any other province in this period, with the possible exception of
Egypt, and is invaluable to historians in terms of understanding how the Roman
provinces functioned, or more precisely how the Roman government dealt with
diverse or unruly societies.6 The vast majority of information comes from one
source, the Jewish historian Josephus. We have supplementary contemporary
material from Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, who records two episodes in the history
of the province in his Legatio and of course the New Testament from which we
also glean additional incidental information.
From the Roman perspective however, there is little material; Suetonius, the
biographer, mentions the fortunes of Vespasian and Titus in Judaea. Tacitus in his
Histories affords mere glimpses into the situation in Judaea, although it must be
stressed that the relevant parts of his work are lost. When he does mention events
in Judaea he does so in order to show up the misconduct of the procurators;
otherwise, according to Tacitus, ‘all was quiet under the reign of Tiberius’.7
However, his views concerning the Jewish race seem to reflect the then popular
conception of this alien nation. According to him the practices of the Jews were
‘sinister and revolting’ and Jewish belief was ‘paradoxical and degraded’.8
 T H E H I S T O R I C A L B A C KG R O U N D : 1 9 8 b c – a d 6 6 13

Only when a major war developed, involving two future emperors and four
legions did Tacitus deem the province important enough to record some of
the details. It is not that he was lacking in his duty as an historian but simply
in Roman eyes, Judaea was unimportant, and the riots and rebellions that took
place there were of little consequence within the framework of the whole of the
empire.
The most frequently asked question of all is why did the Jewish revolt against
Rome happen? What caused the Jews to plunge headlong into this calamitous
revolt against such a powerful adversary? The answer still remains elusive,
despite the fact there is a substantial amount of source material available for
the period. The problem lies mainly in the fact that the majority of evidence
available comes from one source, Jewish War, written by Flavius Josephus. The
works of Josephus have been the subject of controversy amongst scholars in
recent times. The ambiguity of Josephus’ position, first as a Jewish leader of a
rebellion, then as, ‘a man who assisted his former enemy and was paid for it’,9
has caused many scholars to incline to view his accounts as too personalized for
serious consideration. Others believe he still makes a valuable contribution to
our understanding of this period of history, despite the fact that his accounts are
prone to bias and full of inconsistencies, especially the overlapping accounts in
Life and Jewish War concerning his role in Galilee. In order to examine the Jewish
war with Rome it will be necessary to use Josephus’ works and while they may
tell us about the situation in Judaea consideration must be given to the role that
Josephus played in the events he describes and briefly try to evaluate whether his
own personal circumstances may have affected his accounts of the revolt.
This page intentionally left blank
 2

Josephus and his Histories

I will state the facts accurately and impartially. (Jewish War 1:7)

Flavius Josephus is probably the most enigmatic of all ancient historians. A

multi-faceted character; he was a Jew, priest, scholar, rebel military commander,
traitor, Roman citizen and author (under Imperial Roman patronage). What
actual information we have concerning Josephus’ life comes entirely from his
own writings, partly from his autobiography Life (Vita), and partly from other
morsels of information that are scattered throughout the pages of Jewish War
(Bellum Judaicum).
He tells us he was born Joseph ben Mattiyahu in Jerusalem in ad 37, the child
of an aristocratic priestly family, descended on his mother’s side from royal blood,
the Hasmoneans or Maccabeans. He tells us nothing more about his mother’s
family but continues in his narration to give an account of his paternal lineage.
His early education was a purely religious one based on the Torah, reflecting
the training appropriate for a future priest. He would have us believe he was
something of a child prodigy who the chief priests and leading city figures would
seek out for advice:

While still a mere boy, about fourteen years old, I won universal applause for my love
of letters; insomuch that the chief priests and leading men of the city used constantly to
come to me for precise information on some particular in our ordinances.1

At the age of 16 he decided to go in search of a suitable religious sect that would

accommodate his intellectual needs. At that time in Judaea there were three
major religious sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, and Josephus tells us he
spent three years gaining personal experience of each. It seems highly likely this
must have entailed only a cursory foray into the different groups; for example
in order to become a member of the Essene sect one had to spend three years
solely with them in order to achieve any level of competence, this would have
been impossible if, as Josephus says, he also spent three years in the desert as the
disciple of Bannus the aesthetic:
16 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

With him I lived for three years and, having accomplished my purpose, returned to
the city. Being now in my nineteenth year I began to govern my life by the rules of the
Pharisees.

This kind of inconsistency is a characteristic of all Josephus’ writings, and

something one must be aware of when assessing what he has to say about the
later tumultuous events that happened in his country. According to his account
in Life, at the age of 19 he finally chose to govern his life by the rules of the
Pharisees, a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greeks call
the Stoic school. The identification with Stoicism reveals an ignorance of and
indifference to philosophy and is an easy, though inaccurate, way of trying to
communicate with a Greek audience.2 This is somewhat surprising as throughout
his works, especially in Jewish War and Antiquities, he displays a profound dislike
towards them. However, it is possible when he was writing his Life he decided to
emphasize his earlier connections with the Pharisees for by then they had become
extremely popular, and no doubt Josephus craved popular support.
He tells us nothing more about himself until he reached the age of 26, when
he had his first contact with Rome (circa ad 63). He was sent there on a mission
to the emperor Nero (who sent him there he does not say) to secure the release of
several priests, despatched as prisoners on trifling charges by Felix, the procurator
of Judaea at the time. While in Rome, Josephus was afforded an introduction to
Poppaea Sabina, consort of the emperor Nero, and he wasted no time in trying
to solicit her aid in his mission. He must have made a favourable impression on
her for he tells us she gave him large gifts, but fails to say what they were, indeed
they may well have been gifts destined for the Temple, as Poppaea was known to
be a Jewish sympathizer.
On his return to Judaea he found his country on the verge of rebellion against
Rome. He attempted to pacify members of the war party but found himself
powerless trying to restrain them. They apparently would not heed his warnings
of the dire consequences that would ensue should they persist in confronting the
might of Rome, so fearing he would be regarded as a traitor he sought asylum
in the Temple along with several other like-minded individuals. Jointly they
appeared to sympathize with the rebel cause while at the same he time tried to
persuade them to act defensively and let Rome make the first move. By acting in
this way, Josephus tells us:

We had hopes that ere long Cestius (the governor of Syria) would come up with a large
army and quell the revolution.3

Although Josephus leaves a full account of the events that finally led to open
rebellion, he actually played no part in them. After Cestius’ disastrous foray to
 JOSEPHUS AND HIS HISTORIES 17

Jerusalem, the rebel government appointed Josephus to take command of the

two Galilees and the city of Gamala. Josephus was barely 30 years of age and had
little military experience, but according to his account in Life he was sent, along
with two other priests, Joazar and Judas:

To induce the disaffected to lay down their arms and to impress on them the desirability
of reserving these for the picked men of the nation. The latter, so it was decided were to
have their weapons constantly in readiness for future contingencies, but should wait and
see what action the Romans would take.4

In Life he tells us his mission was a failure, because he was unable to persuade
the rebels to give up their arms. Yet, the same account in JW presents us with
significant disparities; in this account it seems, he was given from the start an
important military command in Galilee, and he speaks about the training he
gave his men based on Roman military lines (although how he had acquired such
knowledge he does not say).
We also read in Life how he comes into conflict with an important Galilean,
John of Gischala. John accused him of being a traitor and sent to his friends in
Jerusalem to entreat the assembly to have Josephus removed from his post and
appoint him in his place. The High Priest Ananus and Simon, son of Gamaliel
sent a secret deputation of four, including apparently one of Josephus’ former
companions, Joazar, to supersede him. Josephus outwitted this deputation, made
counter-representations to Jerusalem and got himself reinstated.
It is not clear why he was appointed to this post in the first place to oversee
a distracted province, given his pacifist and pro-Roman tendencies; the capital,
Sepphoris was staunchly pro-Roman but refused to have any dealings with him;
Gamala remained loyal while Tiberias was a constant hotbed of trouble and
faction fighting. Josephus’ motives are also questionable, and from the evidence
he supplies suggests he was playing a double waiting game. He tells how he
trained volunteers and fortified cites and villages under his protection, yet he also
tells us when he received a request from John of Gischala to authorize him to seize
the imperial corn stored in the villages of Upper Galilee he replied: ‘I intended
to reserve the corn either for the Romans or for my own use’. Therefore it is little
wonder Josephus was suspected of harbouring traitorous thoughts to betray the
country to the enemy. According to this account it was the rebels, or as he refers
to them the ‘brigands’, who forced his hand and compelled him to put himself
at the head of the war party in Galilee, or be superseded.
The rest of story is taken up in JW, when in the spring of ad 67, with the
advance of the Roman army under the command of the general Vespasian,
Josephus, who had been deserted by most of his volunteer army, was forced to
take refuge in the fortified town of Jotapata and withstand a siege.
18 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

The incident at Jotapata, which he recounts in Chapter 3 of JW, is probably

the most singularly embarrassing chapter in all of Josephus’ works. He tells how,
when the town was besieged by the Romans he and 40 other notables under his
command hid in a cave. Vespasian offered him a pardon (i.e. he could surrender
and not be killed) because he was a general, but his companions preferred
to commit suicide rather than fall into Roman hands. After haranguing his
companions with a long rhetorical speech on the sinfulness of suicide (which
failed to move them), he agreed to their suicide pact. He proposed the drawing
of lots to decide the order of mutual killing. So, they drew lots; one-by-one
they carried out the killing of their comrades until only Josephus and one other
person were left. Josephus recounts with great pride his ingenious duping of his
countrymen and makes it clear he ‘had counted the numbers by cunning and
thereby misled them all’. If Josephus had arranged the selection using a circular
count then it has been proven that a clever manipulator could contrive the
order in which to place himself within the circle in order to survive. In more
modern times mathematicians called this method of counting a ‘Josephus count’
(Josephus-spiel), and it became one of the most popular arithmetical problems
of the Middle Ages.5
Having contrived to ensure his survival, Josephus was brought before
Vespasian to whom he related a prophetic dream he had in which Vespasian
was to become emperor of Rome, and a new Flavian dynasty established; the
prophecy according to the Roman historian Suetonius was attested to by a pagan
witness.6 Incidentally, in the Talmud this prophecy was attributed to the prophet
Johannan b. Zakkai who was an inside witness to the siege of Jerusalem. We are
led to believe because of this he received clemency from the future emperor; even
so he was still a prisoner. Shortly after his prediction came true: the eventful and
bloody year ad 68–69, when hostilities in Judaea were suspended, witnessed the
death of the emperor Nero, followed in quick succession by three emperors before
finally Vespasian took matters into his own hands and was proclaimed emperor
by his eastern legions.
One of Vespasian’s first acts as emperor was to release the man who had
prophesied his future success. Josephus accompanied him to Alexandria; from
there he returned in ad 70 to Judaea with Vespasian’s son, Titus, to witness the
siege of Jerusalem and to act as mediator, circuiting the walls of the city trying
to persuade the Jews to surrender; it was only Titus’ protection that saved him
from the wrath of his countrymen who once again saw him as a betrayer of their
country. In gratitude Titus presented him with a tract of land outside Jerusalem
and some sacred books; Josephus also managed to obtain from the conqueror
of his people the liberation of some his friends including his father and brother.
He then accompanied Titus to Rome, never to return to Judaea.
Josephus tells us a little about his domestic life at this time:
 JOSEPHUS AND HIS HISTORIES 19

At this period I divorced my wife, being displeased at her behaviour. She had borne
me three children, of whom two died; one, whom I named Hyrcanus, is still alive.
Afterwards I married a woman of Jewish extraction who had settled in Crete. She came
of very distinguished parents, indeed the most notable in that country. In character she
surpassed many of her sex, as her subsequent life showed. By her I had two sons, Justus
the elder, and then Simonides, surnamed Agrippa. Such is my domestic history.7

However, to his own people he always remained a traitor, the traitor of Jerusalem,
as some have called him;8 and for many the mere fact he could write about
the incident at Jotapata in the way he did, meant he lost all credibility as an
historian.
Josephus spent the remaining 30 years or more in Rome as a client of the
Flavians and was commissioned to write the history of their triumph over the
Jews. He presented his work Jewish War to the emperor for official approval,
which he got; Titus affixed his seal and ordered it to be made available to the
public. He was awarded full Roman citizenship, took a Roman name, Flavius
(after his patrons) Josephus, was given a lodging in the former palace of Vespasian
and a pension, newly instituted by the emperor. He spent the rest of his life in
Rome devoting his time to writing until his death circa ad 100.
However, even in the safety of his new homeland, he was constantly coming
under attack from his countrymen, even amongst his own household. He was
accused of subsidizing a Jewish revolt in Cyrene, slandered by his son’s tutor,
and finally verbally attacked by his rival, Justus of Tiberias. This was perhaps
the most damaging incident of his career. Justus was a rival historian, who in his
history threw out the accusation that Josephus, during his command in Galilee,
had been responsible for the revolt in his [Justus’] native Tiberias. Justus’ history
has not survived so there is no way of knowing what was said or how much truth
there was in the accusations. However, these exposures seriously threatened the
security of his position and well as sales of his works.
On the death of his patron, the emperor Titus in ad 79 he finally shook off his
Roman fetters and became the historian and apologist of his people. However,
he was still part of the imperial circle, he tells us:

The treatment I received from the emperors continued unaltered. Domitian succeeded
Titus and added to my honours. He punished my Jewish accusers, and for a similar offence
gave orders for the chastisement of a slave, a eunuch and my son’s tutor. He also exempted
my property in Judaea from taxation – a mark of the highest honour to the privileged
individual. Moreover, Domitia, Caesar’s wife, never ceased conferring favours on me.9

Nevertheless, he never won his countrymen’s affection, it was Rome that

perpetuated his memory; ancient sources tell us there was a statue erected to
20 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

him in Rome (now lost) in his honour.10 His works profoundly influenced
the early Church Fathers, especially Jerome who praised him as a second Livy
(Epistula ad Eustochium 22.35). The Testimonium Flavianum is a Slavonic version
of War, apparently made in the eleventh century ad and in which there are a
number of additions to the original Greek version. These additional passages
contain references to John the Baptist and Jesus. Recent scholarship indicates the
work was utilized by Christians in the ideological struggle against the Khazars
who had converted to Judaism in the eighth century ad. Because of this work
Josephus was regarded as having borne witness to the miracles and ministry of
Jesus, his Messiahship and resurrection, so it not surprising his works appeared
alongside those of the Church Fathers. During the Middle Ages he was regarded
as a polymath, an authority in such diverse fields as biblical exegesis, arithmetic,
astronomy, geography, etymology and Jewish theology. Certainly his works,
especially Jewish War have remained popular up to modern times, and have
inspired writers such as Voltaire, Petrarch, and in the twentieth century a trilogy
of novels by Leon Feuchtwanger.
However, one question still remains; was Josephus really a traitor or a man of
vision who believed the way forward for his people was collaboration rather than
confrontation with Rome? The question has never been fully resolved and even
now is still a subject of controversy. In October 1992 Israeli television devoted a
whole evening to the debate; Josephus was put on trial for treason. Once again
it appears Josephus’ skill for survival served him well with later generations also;
the outcome was the acquittal of the accused for lack of evidence.
Josephus wrote four works in Greek: two were written towards the end of
his life, Against Apion (Contra Aponium, published c. ad 96) and the rather
misleadingly entitled Life (Vita published c. ad 93/4), which is not a true
autobiography but an apologia. The historical writings are earlier and consist of
two overlapping works, The Jewish War (Bellum Judaicum) and Jewish Antiquities
(Antiquitates Judaicae), of which War is the earlier and by far the more interesting
(published c. ad 79 and ad 93/4 respectively). Originally there was an Aramaic
version of the JW, which has not survived; all we know of it is what Josephus
tells us. He says he wrote an Aramaic version not for a gentile audience, but to
warn near eastern neighbours of the folly of hasty action against the might of
Rome. The Aramaic version was widely distributed among the barbarians of
the interior of Asia, and could well have been a commissioned work. Josephus
was uniquely qualified to do the job. His position as a member of the priestly
aristocracy ensured his credibility with his own people, he also had access to
documentation, but above all he could address the intended readership in their
own language, Aramaic. Until such time a copy emerges we cannot ascertain
whether or not there were substantial differences between the content of the two
works. Fortunately for posterity, he decided to rewrite the work in Greek.
 JOSEPHUS AND HIS HISTORIES 21

The books that have survived are, in style and content, Hellenistic Greek
works, written for the Greek-speaking population, and owe their survival to
the fact they were composed in or translated into Greek. Josephus wrote, not
in the common literary language of the Hellenistic age, New Testament Greek,
but in the revived Greek of classical Athens. A notable achievement considering
he was a Palestinian Jew, not an Alexandrian one whose first language would
have been Greek, a Palestinian Jew’s knowledge of Greek would have been
somewhat superficial in comparison. Linguistically his achievement did not go
unrecognized, seven centuries later the Byzantine Patriarch, Photius commented
on the purity of his language.
Josephus was similarly proud of his achievement: he says, at the close of
Antiquities: ‘I make bold to say that no one else whether Jew or alien, could, with
the best will in the world have produced a work of such accuracy as this for Greek
readers’.11 Nevertheless he had collaborators to assist him with the translation,
and to whom he makes one passing reference in Against Apion. The extent of their
contribution is a matter for debate amongst scholars, however there is nothing
other than assumption to suggest the collaborators played any substantial part in
the composition despite some contrary assertions.12 Josephus wrote in the Greek
tradition of historiography, modelling his style upon the political history of the
Greek historian Thucydides, with emphasis on the superiority of eyewitness
accounts. The Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides, and the Roman
historian Sallust, all wrote about events that either they witnessed themselves
or had reported to them by contemporary witnesses. The kind of detachment
Thucydides achieved was rare and inevitably personal bias often found its
way into this style of historical writing. The model for the composition of the
Antiquities was the work of the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
who published his Antiquities of the Romans in 7 bc, contained in 20 books,
precisely the same number that Josephus employed for his work. However unlike
Dionysius, Josephus was faced with the need to be an apologist as well as an
historian, and the difficulties this presented must have been considerable. It is
one thing to write about the Roman rise to power, quite another to write about
the history of a nation that was disliked, vilified and considered alien by the most
powerful empire in the ancient world.

We cannot be certain what books Josephus read or what sources he used. If the
Epaphroditus to whom Josephus dedicated all his later works was his patron,
after the death of Titus, then it could be the same man as the learned Greek
grammarian. There were two contemporary men with the same uncommon
name. This one is commemorated in an inscription: the other was a freedman and
secretary to the emperor Nero. We know this man was reputed to have amassed
a private library consisting of 30,000 books, which would have put Josephus in a
22 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

far better position to acquire information than many of his contemporaries. In

his defence it must be stressed there is little reason to suppose books existed that
actually covered certain periods of his histories, e.g. the early decades of the first
century after the death of Herod the Great.
However, we can be fairly confident about some of his sources. For the greater
part of the Antiquities, the period down to the Maccabees, his main source
of information was the Bible. Apart from the Pentateuch, Judges, Joshua and
possibly Ruth, he relied heavily upon the Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic
texts. This calls into question the level of Josephus’ own biblical scholarship,
Josephus seems ignorant about the smaller mistakes that occur, no doubt due to
errors in translation; if he were well versed in the Hebrew text this should not
have occurred so frequently.One scholar has queried his use of the Hebrew Bible
because of this reliance on the Greek text and not without some justification.
We can also trace the influences of the haggadah, (older legends) particularly
in his account of Moses and the Patriarchs. However, it appears he employed not
only oral tradition but also supplemented stories derived from earlier Hellenistic
versions of Biblical history from such writers as Demetrius and Artapanus.
For the Law he followed the Palestinian halakah13 and we cannot overlook the
possibility he would have made use of the meticulously kept priestly documents.
Other non-Biblical sources are also cited to supplement or corroborate individual
events.14
For the two centuries preceding the Hasmoneans there was little Biblical
authority. Herod the Great had his own personal biographer, Nicolaus of
Damascus upon whom Josephus relied heavily. If we compare his account
of Herod in JW with that in Antiquities, we can note differences that have
serious implications concerning his abilities as a critical historian. For example
in Antiquities his portrayal of Herod is one of exhaustive flattery, almost a
straight copy of Nicolaus of Damascus’ work. However, in JW, he employed a
hostile antagonism towards the king that reflected the attitude of the people of
Jerusalem.15
When writing about the Roman period he would have had access to official
Roman documents, and no doubt while he lived in Rome would have become
familiar with the official commentarii (commander’s log books) of the emperors
Vespasian and Titus. There is much credence given to the importance of
these documents by some scholars, especially when Josephus is describing the
destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70.16 However, this is at variance with Josephus’
own account in Against Apion17 where he states he used the notes he made at the
time along with statements from deserters about the situation inside the city.
Consideration must also be given to the fact he may have consulted the works of
Strabo, Polybius and Philo, although in the case of the latter there is evidence to
suggest this may not have been the case.
 JOSEPHUS AND HIS HISTORIES 23

The use Josephus made of his sources has often given cause for concern
amongst scholars, especially with regard to his accuracy and reliability. It is
evident he used source material for his own purposes and was not above changing
or substituting material in order to emphasize his own personal ideology. His
use of Biblical sources overall is fairly accurate. Nevertheless, he frequently used
the Bible as an apologetic and often made modifications. He omitted items that
may have caused offence and his aim appears to have been to present Jewish
history in the best possible light. A good example can be seen in his account in
Antiquities of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Josephus gives
this version:

but their empire will be destroyed by another king from the west, clad in bronze, and this
power will be ended by still another, like iron, that will have dominion forever through its
iron nature, which he said is harder than that of gold, silver or bronze. And Daniel also
revealed to the king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought it proper to relate
this, since I am expected to write of what is past and done and not what is to be.18

What Josephus omitted was the detail that the fourth kingdom was ‘of iron
mixed with miry clay’; and what was not proper to relate at all was that ‘in the
days of those kings shall God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be
destroyed . . . but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall stand forever’.19
The Jewish interpretation current at the time was that the fourth kingdom
was Rome, which would be overthrown at the coming of the Messiah. Writing in
Rome as a Roman citizen, under Roman patronage, Josephus found himself in a
difficult situation and would have seen little option other than to omit or change
the text. Obviously from Josephus’ point of view there was a good apologetic
reason for tampering with the original. Another characteristic of Josephus is that
he used good stories for apologetic ends, regardless of whether or not they were
true, for example, Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem in JA.
For the decades preceding the revolt and subsequent war with Rome, Josephus
had little source material and relied upon his own recollection of events. By
comparing the texts of the two works JA and JW, where they overlap historically,
it becomes apparent, at such times as these Josephus was at a loss with his work.
Overall they become patchy and incomplete and he only appears to regain
confidence in his writing when he reaches the period in which he was personally
involved.
There is almost universal assent he composed JW for his Flavian patrons and
even the title of the work reflects his pro-Roman biases. Some scholars believe
it can be misleading to accept this concept at face value.20 Like many ancient
historians the speeches Josephus writes can be vehicles for his own thoughts. One
24 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

speech in particular is worthy of mention in this context. The speech is contained

in Book 7 of JW, here he puts into the mouth of Eleazar ben Yair, the leader of
the Zealots in their last desperate stand against the might of Rome on Herod’s
rock fortress of Masada, a speech that seems specifically to have been created
as a counterweight to the Roman triumph over his people It is more powerful
in its exposition, not only that but Josephus has also chosen this incident to
provide the climax to his work. It appears ‘the pull of the Flavians is not made
to supersede earlier loyalties’ and something worth serious consideration.21
This speech, however, has other connotations. Josephus also uses this method
as a way of laying the blame for the whole affair on the Zealots, and here in the
final chapter he makes them confess their sin. This is not to say he exonerates
the Romans or shows bias on their behalf, quite the reverse; he is attempting to
show his gentile audience that only one section of the Jewish people could be held
responsible for the calamitous events, the notorious Zealots, whose way led only
to death. Even though in Josephus’ eyes they were wrong he still ennobles them
by making them prefer death rather than servitude. The emphasis seems to be
that the Jewish people themselves brought about their destruction;22 Rome was
merely the instrument by which God punished them for their crimes.
Whether or not the work was commissioned, Josephus appears to have had
his own motivation for writing JW. There had been other accounts of the war
published after the event and Josephus found them all inadequate. There were
accounts written by people who had not participated in events, and others
written by military veterans who recounted the great heroics of the victors while
at the same time playing down the role of the Jews, something, according to
Josephus, was a deplorable state of affairs: ‘I fail to see how the conquerors of so
puny a people deserve to be accounted great’. For Josephus there was only one
recourse and that was to write an account himself, who better than someone who
had participated on both sides? As he says the only historians deserving of praise
are those who undertake

the work of committing to writing events which have not been previously recorded and
of commending to posterity the history of one’s own time who use fresh materials and
make the framework of history their own.23

As none of the other accounts have survived, Josephus’ JW is the only complete
work concerning the period leading up to the revolt against Rome and with
little else by which to judge the veracity of the work, we can only compare
this version with similar accounts in his other works to ascertain its reliability.
Instead of finding his recollections are basically sound and accurate, often we are
presented with frustrating discrepancies, especially between his accounts in Life
and JW concerning the early stages of the rebellion. In these accounts he deals
 JOSEPHUS AND HIS HISTORIES 25

with events in Galilee in which he played a significant role. Yet his recollections
of this period appear oddly vague, and we are left with the impression we are
not being presented with the whole truth. These discrepancies cannot easily be
accounted for and have prompted scholars to offer a variety of explanations, none
of which as yet, has proved satisfactory. It would appear Josephus is only reliable
when he does not use his own personal religious or political biases to emphasize
a particular reason for a course of action.24
In order to assess the reasons he gives for the revolt it is necessary to bear in
mind that Josephus is capable of using information for his own purposes and
omitting anything he considered irrelevant or embarrassing. The proximity of
Josephus to events he describes would obviously account for some inevitable
personal bias. However, the causes he cites for the war can be divided into two
separate categories, the accelerating causes and the immediate causes, and need
to be examined in order to discover why, according to Josephus, the conflict with
Rome came about.
This page intentionally left blank
 3

The Causes of Revolution According to Josephus (I)

The ostensible pretext for war was out of proportion to the

magnitude of the disasters to which it led. (JW 2:284)

With the exception of the Peloponnesian War in fourth-century bc Greece,

chronicled by the historian Thucydides, there is no other war in antiquity
for which such an elaborate account survives and for this we are indebted to
Josephus. However, there are a lot of serious omissions in his narratives and the
different social and political structures, as well as the differences in culture, make
it extremely difficult to draw comparisons with other revolts within the Roman
Empire. We may be inclined to agree with historians when they say there was not
one single cause for the revolt but an amalgamation of reasons that combined to
bring about the final confrontation with Rome.1 The reasons, accepted by most
scholars are; socio/economic problems (however, should we believe that only
the Jews were poor? No gentiles appear to have taken part in this revolt surely
they would have done had economic reasons been the sole cause?); fighting
between Jews and Gentiles; religious conflicts with Rome; the activities of various
extremist groups; the anti-Jewish behaviour of the last Roman procurators; and
alienation from the ruling class.2 Josephus mentions all of these causes at some
point and all are perfectly valid when assessing the reasons for conflict with
Rome, but they are not entirely satisfactory when trying to evaluate the actual
cause of conflict.
According to Josephus’ works there appear to have been two stages to the
eventual conflict, the accelerating causes and the immediate causes. What
becomes apparent in the evidence we have from Josephus is that during the 50s
and 60s there was a gradual breakdown in the leadership of the country, both
Roman and Jewish. The deplorable handling by the procurator Cumanus (ad
48–52) of the conflict between the Galileans and the Samaritans saw the spread
of a breakdown of authority to the countryside, and it was in the countryside that
bands of brigands arose who terrorized the populace throughout this period.
The accelerating causes Josephus cites are many and varied. In JW he cites
conflict within the Jewish community itself,3 trouble with the Syrian Greek/
Jewish communities,4 various theological reasons, and in Life even goes as far as
to lay the blame for the revolt at the door of Justus of Tiberias and his brother (his
28 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

accuser regarding his behaviour in Galilee). However, two main reasons become
prominent throughout his works: first the misadministration of the province
by the Roman procurators, and second the behaviour of the dissident Jewish
factions, especially the group referred to as the Fourth Philosophy.
The Roman procurators left much to be desired as men of ability, even the
Roman historian, Tacitus was not completely unjustified in his biases towards
these men. What is surprising is that the tolerance that was shown towards the
Diaspora Jews is markedly absent in Judaea.5 Tacitus’ epigram duravit tamen
patientia Iudaeis (all was quiet in Judaea) is a very telling one. Another failing on
the part of the Roman administration was that when capable men were appointed
to the post they were inadequately supplied with the necessary military strength
to ensure order was kept and this was indeed a serious oversight on the part of
Rome, who must surely have been aware this was no ‘ordinary’ province.
However, the blame was not all one-sided and Josephus does give other
instances where Jewish provocation of Roman authority led directly to conflict.
Nationalism was a vital issue amongst the Jews and it was the Jews’ political as
well as their religious fanaticism that made them a difficult people to govern. It
would not be unreasonable to reverse Tacitus’ remark and say duravit patientia et
Romanis (all was quiet at Rome).6 The difficulties involved in governing the Jews
were even more apparent when they were massed together in their homeland.
Since the rebellion of Judas of Galilee in ad 6, the seeds of dissent had been
sown, and although Josephus is writing rather naively when he attributes the
cause of the revolt directly to this earlier rebellion, he does hit upon a germ of
truth. The doctrines and notions bred out of this rebellion engendered the idea
that terrorism and open revolt would inevitably be the only solution against
Roman domination. The foundation stones had been laid for the development
of divergent terrorist movements throughout the years that followed, which went
in no small way to bringing about the final confrontation between the Jews and
their Gentile overlords.
One historian has pointed out that Josephus indirectly mentions a variety of
possible causes throughout all his works, not just in a few paragraphs of JW, but
adds that modern scholarship has neglected to do a systematic analysis of them,
concentrating instead on the few more major issues.7 This is a valid statement,
yet while this type of analysis would not necessarily clarify the underlying cause
of the revolt, it would perhaps go some way to highlighting Josephus’ pre-
occupation with trying to assess the problems that faced the province.
Many of the causes Josephus cites, either directly or indirectly, revolve around
the behaviour of the procurators. He was not against procuratorial rule per se and
had very clear opinions about how a good procurator should govern; according
to him he should be able to control the dissidents, show reverence to all Jewish
religious customs and maintain a distance from the cult and Temple. Perhaps
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I ) 29

more importantly in his eyes, a good procurator devolved responsibility onto the
High Priests and persons of note thereby avoiding conflict. This was the ideal,
the truth was very different, and Josephus found very few examples of such men
who could satisfy the criteria throughout the 60 years of Roman procuratorial
rule up to the outbreak of the revolt.
Josephus supplies no information on the procurators for the period ad
6–26 he merely lists, in JA, the names of the men who held office during that
time. This is unfortunate for as already noted, in ad 6, the seeds of revolt were
already being sown by a man named Judas of Galilee, who it appears organized
the first anti-Roman party in Judaea. He and a radical Pharisee, Zadok led a
revolt, which was quelled by Quintilius Varus who executed 2,000 participants.
Further information about this incident may have revealed similarities with later
disturbances.8
The first procurator to be mentioned by Josephus is Pontius Pilate, to whom
Josephus attributes three acts of sacrilege against the Jewish faith. Pilate was
the fifth governor of the province of Judaea and held office from ad 26–37. His
main responsibilities as governor were primarily military; his official title was
Praefectus Iudaeae (prefect of Judaea). A mutilated limestone inscription was
found in Caesarea in 1961, it commemorated a building erected by Pilate for the
emperor Tiberius (known as the Tiberium, but what the building’s function was
is not certain) and bears out Pilate’s title of prefect.
The first incident that caused a public outcry concerned the legionary
standards, which Pilate had brought into Jerusalem. Previous procurators had,
out of respect for Jewish religious feeling, always chosen for their garrison in the
Antonia fortress, close to Temple Mount, standards that contained no medallion
bust portraits of the emperor. Pilate decided to exchange these standards with
ones that did contain the emperor’s portrait, and took them to Jerusalem on
the Day of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles. When the presence of these
items (in close proximity to the High Priest’s vestments in the Antonia) became
known demonstrations ensued. On the pretext of listening to the protestors Pilate
summoned the leading men to a tribunal, and then ringed them with soldiers,
threatening to kill them if they did not desist. They surprised Pilate by offering
themselves willing to the sword, rather than infringe their Law. Pilate rescinded
his decision and sent the troops back to Caesarea, but the Jews, although they won
a decisive victory now became suspicious so whatever Pilate did from then on
would be suspect. Josephus however, gives him credit for promptly withdrawing
the troops owing to public pressure.
He followed this act by committing another equally disrespectful one when
he allegedly took money from the Temple treasury to help finance the building
of an aqueduct; this action resulted in violence, and many Jewish protestors were
beaten to death or crushed in the ensuing stampede.9 A lesser incident occurred
30 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

when one of his soldiers performed an indecent act within the city; this also
resulted in violence.
There is a further incident concerning Pilate that goes unrecorded by Josephus
but is mentioned by the Alexandrian Jew and philosopher, Philo in his work
Legatio.10 It appears Pilate had gilded shields, dedicated to the emperor Tiberius,
attached to the walls of Herod’s palace, his residence in Jerusalem. It is a rather
bewildering account, inasmuch as even Philo, who was a Jew, is at odds to explain
why these shields should have infringed the Law, as they were anionic, unlike
the standards that Pilate previously brought into the city. There was no violence
this time but the Jews demanded that Pilate produce the emperor Tiberius’
authorization for the dedications, so they could appeal to Rome to have them
removed. Tiberius reprimanded Pilate and ordered the shields to be removed to
the imperial cult temple in Caesarea. The fact Josephus does not mention this
incident cannot be dismissed as an oversight, but then, in Josephus’ defence,
Philo does not mention the episode of the standards, neither does he make any
reference to Pilate’s flouting of the Jewish religious susceptibilities that Josephus
goes to great lengths to emphasize. In Philo’s accounts of events in Rome there
is evidence that may shed light on this oversight in Josephus’ narrative.
In his work Legatio Philo speaks of the anti-Semitism of Aelius Sejanus, the
Praetorian commander and right-hand man of the emperor Tiberius, and his
policy to annihilate the whole Jewish race.11 The early Christian writer Eusebius
uses Philo as a source to support the view that Sejanus’ policy was linked with the
attack on the Temple and was divine retribution for the crucifixion of Christ. It is
possible there was a longer account by Philo that has not survived. Nevertheless it
is conceivable Pilate either received instructions from Sejanus to stir up the Jews
in order to provoke trouble for the emperor Tiberius, or, more likely, Pilate saw
an opportunity to call attention to himself in the hope he would gain favour with
Sejanus (who at that time appeared to be on course for higher office, some believe
perhaps even emperor). Pilate’s actions can certainly seem deliberate rather than
misguided. There is further evidence to lend credence to this theory. Pilate issued
a series of coins based on Republican coin types which depicted the simpulum
and litmus, pagan objects the Jews found offensive, even more so considering they
had to use these coins on a daily basis.12 The coins can be dated to ad 29/32 and
would have been in line with Sejanus’ policy.13 When Sejanus fell from power,
Pilate fearing reprisals from the emperor, may have decided to display his loyalty
to Tiberius with the dedication of the shields and later the Tiberieum, a unique
building in the city of Caesarea. The building may have been a temple, or it may
have been a purely secular building such as a portico.
Although this theory affords some explanation for Pilate’s behaviour, it does
not account for Josephus’ omission of the incident. There is no reason to suppose
Josephus would have had access to information concerning events in Rome.
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I ) 31

What is apparent in Josephus’ accounts of Pilate is that it is always the mob that
confronts him; we never learn what the Jewish notables think or do in any of these
situations. Yet the episode with the shields demonstrated that Jewish authorities
did take action and could appeal directly to the emperor and receive favourable
treatment. Therefore, would Josephus want to show an improvement in the
situation when the real intention was to show the gradual breakdown of Roman/
Jewish relations? Or could it be because he could find no rational reason within
the Law for the Jewish authorities’ outcry over the shields, he chose instead to
omit the episode, simply because it did not fit into the pattern he had woven for
Pilate, i.e. his flouting of Jewish religious susceptibilities?
There is one other incident Josephus does not mention in his account of
Pilate, that of the crucifixion of Christ.14 It is the Roman historian Tacitus who
supplies this information in connection with Christian implication in the fire
of Rome during Nero’s reign (ad 65). This is the only information Tacitus gives
concerning Pilate. According to him all was quiet during the reign of Tiberius,15
hardly a view shared by the Jews. But such statements do reflect the insignificance
of Judaea in Roman eyes.
We find further discrepancies when we compare Philo’s and Josephus’ account
of the legate Petronius’ actions, when faced with having to implement the next
emperor Caligula’s wish to have his statue erected in the Temple towards the
end of ad 39. In Philo’s version Petronius was more indecisive whether or not
to implement the order, while in Josephus’ version Petronius was inclined from
the outset to favour the Jewish supplicants. There are also great discrepancies
concerning the dating of the events, with Josephus giving two different accounts
in JW and JA. Josephus’ version is also very ornate which tends to make his
account a little suspect. On the other hand, Philo’s version would seem the more
reliable for he was contemporary with events and had some connection to them.
He was the leader of one of the embassies sent to the emperor Gaius (Caligula)
by the Alexandrian Jews and was in contact, while in Rome, with the Jewish king,
Agrippa I who intervened to save the Temple.
Philo also tells us Petronius had studied Judaism before governing those
provinces containing Diaspora Jews, so to be better equipped to understand any
problems of a religious nature he might encounter. If we read Josephus’ account
in JW, Petronius had to have the Law explained to him in order to understand
why the Jews were objecting to the statue being erected in the Temple. Millar
points out that Josephus could not have read Philo’s account otherwise he would
have known about Petronius’ knowledge of Judaism.16 Nevertheless Josephus
was probably inclined to portray Petronius as a sympathetic non-Jew, willing to
listen to petitioners, rather than someone who was aware of the consequences the
action by the emperor could bring. Yet again it suited Josephus’ stylistic purpose,
and helped to highlight good and bad administrators, in this case Petronius
32 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

satisfies the criteria for a good administrator. This device is also employed to
re-enforce Josephus’ belief that compromise between Rome and Judaea could
always have been a possibility.
Josephus appears to have been satisfied with the next two procurators, Cuspius
Fadus (ad 44?–46) and Tiberius Julius Alexander saying ‘they did not interfere
with any of the customs of the country and so kept the nation at peace’.17 In JA
however, he gives a slightly less positive view, especially referring to an incident
concerning Cuspius Fadus, who he says tried to regain control of the High Priests’
vestments; he is exonerated by Josephus because he responded to their objections.
What really stands out for Josephus is that Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Julius
Alexander both helped rid the country of bandits. He especially notes the efforts
of Tiberius Julius Alexander, who executed the sons of Judas of Galilee (the
man responsible for the uprisings that followed Quirinius’ census in ad 6), after
several acts of terrorism. The calm picture Josephus paints hides the fact this was
an extremely difficult time for the province. Evidence from Acts tells of a great
famine, confirmed by Tacitus taking place in the year ad 51. Josephus makes
no mention of it in JW; although he does refer to a famine in JA, which may be
this one. He does not mention the crucifixion of other Jewish rebels, no doubt
spurred into rebellion by the famine. It is enough for Josephus the procurator
retained control and disciplined the right kind of Jew, without antagonising
the wrong ones. Tiberius Julius Alexander was the nephew of Philo and he had
renounced his Jewish heritage, he was one of only two procurators of Judaea to
go on to achieve higher office, that of Prefect of Egypt. As far as we know the only
other procurator to be promoted to a more senior procuratorship and whose
later career was also recorded was Albinus (ad 62–64). The fact that Alexander
was a Jew helped him maintain control simply by his policy of non-interference
with Jewish custom and for this he gets the seal of approval from Josephus.
It is abundantly clear the troubles and difficulties of direct administration
from Rome manifested themselves between the years ad 4–6, for ‘there was a
distinct lack of mutual understanding. The social tensions coupled with the
demands of Roman imperial policy and provincial administration were not easily
reconcilable with the distinctive character of the Jewish situation’.18
The years ad 48–66 saw five procurators holding office. Three of them come in
for severe criticism from Josephus. The arrival of Ventidius Cumanus (ad 48–52)
marks a turning point in the province’s history, for now, according to Josephus,
Roman procuratorial rule goes from bad to worse. Cumanus was similar to
Pilate in that he also flouted Jewish religious susceptibilities, yet Josephus does
not castigate him as much as he does Pilate, rather strange considering Cumanus
was even less able to control the situation. Cumanus receives mention in both JW
and JA. The first incident concerns an obscene gesture made by a Syrian soldier
on the roof of the Antonia at the time of Passover. Some people even accused
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I ) 33

Cumanus of instigating the incident while others called on him to punish the
culprit. Finally when some of the angry crowd began pelting the soldiers on the
porticoes with stones, Cumanus sent reinforcements down into the enclosure
of the Temple precincts; many Jews panicked and there was considerable loss of
life in the ensuing stampede. Josephus’ reporting of the casualties appears to be
excessive; in JW the number killed is 30,000. This figure is later amended in JA
to 20,000.
The next incident involved an attack on an imperial slave on the Joppa/
Jerusalem Road. Cumanus sent troops to the scene of the crime and they were
ordered to plunder local villages, probably because he suspected them of being
nationalist centres, but more significantly the troops tore up a scroll of the Law
and burnt it in full view of the local population. This act of sacrilege almost had
the population on the verge of revolt. Only when Cumanus had the offending
soldier beheaded was calm restored. The final incident in ad 51 involved armed
conflict between Samaritan and Galilean Jews. The inhabitants of a Samaritan
village waylaid a group of Galilean pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem and killed
a number of them. The Galilean authorities called on Cumanus to have the affair
investigated but Cumanus brushed their appeal to one side, saying he had more
pressing matters to deal with.
When news of the murders reached Jerusalem anger broke out, the Sanhedrin
and other notables tried to intervene and called for moderation from the
Galileans and justice from Rome, which they eventually got, but not after more
violence had erupted. The Galileans had taken matters into their own hands; their
call to arms resulted in large numbers of men going north to join the insurgents.
Two terrorist leaders joined them and under their leadership they put several
Samaritan villages to the torch, as well as one toparchy capital. Tacitus records
the incident and he emphasizes the negligence and corruption on the part of
the procurator.19 However, the allegations Cumanus had been bribed by the
terrorists is not mentioned by Josephus, probably because it was more likely to
be slander, for there is no reason to suppose he would have wished to whitewash
the procurator.
Cumanus now had to act and sent six military units, reinforced by some
Samaritan levies against the Jews’ and Galileans’ forces, in a single engagement
and a great many were killed or captured. The Samaritans appealed to the legate
of Syria, Quadratus, who found them guilty, he also ruled the actions taken by the
Jews and Galileans was tantamount to revolt against Rome. He executed some of
the Samaritans and all of Cumanus’ Jewish prisoners and proceeded to uncover
evidence of further rebellion, executed the leaders and then referred the whole
matter to Rome. At this time, those rebels who had escaped Quadratus’ purge now
found they had increased their support and escaped to their strongholds from
where they carried out a variety of attacks. Josephus points out in JA and JW that
34 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

‘the whole of Judaea was now terrorized by raids from these brigands’.
Quadratus sent Cumanus to Rome to answer to the emperor Claudius.
Accompanying him, in chains, were the High Priests Ananias and Jonathan, as
well as the captain of the Temple. The acting governor of the province during his
absence was Felix, who had been put in charge of Samaria when Cumanus had
been withdrawn. In Rome, the intercession of the Jewish king, Agrippa II helped
the Jewish case. The High Priests were exonerated and Jonathan requested Felix
be made procurator of the province. This was granted and was unprecedented
because Felix was a freedman, the fact he was Pallas’ brother (one of Claudius’
advisers, also a freedman) no doubt helped secure this appointment.
Josephus does not share Tacitus’ dislike of Felix, who Tacitus describes as,
‘brutal and licentious, behaving as a tyrant but showing the mentality of a
slave’.20 Neither does the picture of Felix we get from Acts compare favourably
with Josephus’ account, although it is probably correct to suggest the Acts
version was designed to purposefully flatter Felix. The account that appears in
Acts is taken from an account written by the accusers of St Paul to prejudice the
procurator against the man who they considered a disruptive element. Josephus’
account lies somewhere between the two, portraying Felix as inefficient rather
than deliberately oppressive. According to Josephus, Felix’s only transgression
against the Law was his marriage to King Agrippa’s younger sister Drusilla, after
he had lured her away from her husband: a marriage that connected him to the
Jewish royal family as well as indirectly to the imperial family.
Events in the province now appeared to have taken a different course and there
was no longer a clearly visible distinction between the Jews versus Rome. With the
rise of a nationalistic movement (which is usually associated with the followers
of the Fourth Philosophy, however the various factions appear to have had very
different agendas), there was growing dissatisfaction between opposing Jewish
groups and coupled with the inability of Rome to control the situation plunged
the province closer to disaster. Josephus commented on the upsurge in banditry
and he noted that ‘the country was going from bad to worse’.
Felix began by rounding up some of the terrorists and their sympathizers and
crucified them. He sent Eleazar, the leader of the attack on the Samaritans, and
several of his followers to Rome for trial. This only encouraged the terrorists to
go underground; they took to assassinating their enemies at public festivals while
mingling with the crowds. The first victim of the terrorists who were known as
the Sicarii (dagger men) was the High Priest Jonathan. Josephus in JA says Felix
was responsible for his assassination, having bribed Jonathan’s friend to organize
it, but the shorter account in JW says it was the spontaneous work of the Sicarii,
which would seem a more reliable version, as Jonathan, a pro-Roman would have
been a natural target for the Sicarii. By this time, the Sicarii were becoming the
biggest threat to public order.
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I ) 35

Along with the increase in banditry and political assassination, there also
appeared on the scene a large number of militant prophets. Felix launched,
with unnecessarily severe brutality, an assault on one charismatic leader and his
followers (which incidentally included the apostle Paul), all of who were probably
unarmed. Such acts as this led to the joining of political and military fanatics
in a campaign of terror, estates of the wealthy were plundered and people were
incited to revolt. Those who resisted found their villages fired or plundered as a
warning to all who refused to join the anti-Roman campaign.
Josephus does not lay blame for any of the incidents on Felix, in fact he
approves of the procurator’s handling of the assault on the messianic figure of
the ‘Jew from Egypt’ and his followers. However, Felix’s insensitivity in handling
affairs is seen in the disturbance at Caesarea, which was to play a large part in
the contributing cause of the revolt a few years later. The Jews and Greeks in the
city of Caesarea were in dispute, so Felix deliberately set his soldiers on the Jews.
Josephus makes a point of saying the soldiers were local Gentiles and therefore
natural enemies of the Caesarean Jews. Naturally, there were many Jewish deaths
and much plundering. Once again Jewish notables tried to intervene with the
usual result of a deputation representing both sides being sent to Rome.
Josephus may be suggesting in this account that the envoys sent to Rome
voiced a widespread discontent rather than expressing concern over Felix’s
handling of a local matter. Whatever the case, Felix escaped punishment and was
succeeded by Porcius Festus in ad 58/9, who held office for two years. Josephus
has no complaints about him, he hardly mentions him in JW, except to say he
rounded up some brigands.
In Jerusalem Festus supported King Agrippa who had a disagreement with
the priests concerning a wall that blocked the view from the royal palace into the
interior of the Temple. A Jewish embassy was sent to Rome under the leadership
of Ishmael the High Priest but his attitude appeared hostile to Rome so he was
replaced. Festus died during his term of office therefore his tenure was too short
to have made any lasting impression. Before the arrival of the next governor,
the High Priest Ananus, a Sadducee, tried to disperse the Christian sect and had
James (brother of Jesus) put to death: this action was determined to be illegal
and he too was deposed.
The year ad 62 heralded the period of the last two procurators of Judaea, and
the prelude to revolt. Although Josephus’ accounts become more animated at
this point to show how wicked and evil these men were, he does, however, begin
to omit vital information germane to the understanding of the initial cause of
the revolt.
Josephus’ account of the procurator Albinus (ad 62/4) in JW is at variance
with his account in JA, no doubt partly due to the fact the two accounts were
written at different times. In JW it appears Josephus is far too emotive to give
36 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

an unbiased version because of his proximity to the events he is describing. In

this version Josephus allows Albinus no redeeming features whatsoever. He tells
us Albinus took advantage of his position to appropriate the property of private
individuals and extort money under the guise of taxes. He also goes on to say
he accepted bribes to release terrorists and gave free reign to the activities of the
‘revolutionaries’. By comparison his account in JA portrays a man who bent every
effort and made every provision to ensure peace in the land by exterminating
most of the Sicarii, and who emerges from the narrative as a man unable to cope
with the rapidly mounting unrest, finally submitting to a situation beyond his
control.
There are two reasons why the account in JA is believed to be the more truthful
version. First, the legate of Syria had not received any appeal from Judaea, which
would have been the case had Albinus’ behaviour warranted it. Second, Albinus
was the only other procurator of the province to have been promoted to a more
senior position, which Rome surely would not have sanctioned to judge by what
happened to other procurators who had been disgraced.
Another explanation is that both of Josephus’ accounts could be accurate.
Albinus had been successful in his attempts to rid the province of the Sicarii, but
his known cooperation with the High Priest, Ananus, gave the Sicarii a vehicle
by which to exploit the situation. They attacked and kidnapped people within
Ananus’ circle to put pressure on Albinus to release other terrorist prisoners;
Albinus was in a position where he was forced to act, seemingly in favour of
terrorists within the province; the general consensus at the time that he had
succumbed to bribery may have seemed correct, although his motives may have
been misconstrued. The question is not which of the two accounts is correct, but
what prompted Josephus to put a different emphasis on each one. The earlier
version seems to incorporate the popular conception of the reasons for Albinus’
behaviour, and no doubt useful for Josephus when trying to exonerate the
subsequent behaviour of his countrymen to his gentile readers; it also served to
exonerate Rome from blame by reference to the procurator’s sole responsibility
for events, something with which Rome would happily agree. In the later version
in JA, Josephus gives a more balanced view perhaps when emotive issues of
the conflict (Jew versus Gentile) was not of such paramount importance to
his readers, and Josephus could afford to review the situation. Also in the later
version he mentions the faction fighting that took place between the followers
of the deposed High Priest, Yeshua b. Daneus, and those who opposed him. The
importance of this anarchy in the city was obviously not considered relevant
in the War narrative. What emerges from this account is that the terrorists no
longer comprised the lower classes, for now armed gangs were emerging and
the country was becoming divided into those who stood for law and order and
Roman occupation and those who sided with the rebels.
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I ) 37

However, accounts concerning the last procurator of Judaea are not so

divergent, even Tacitus concurs with Josephus’ comments on Gessius Florus,
a man so wicked he made Albinus appear saintly. Josephus tells us there was
no form of robbery or unjust punishment from which he abstained. Under his
rule the situation rapidly deteriorated; Florus made no attempt to combat the
terrorists who now virtually controlled the province.
Perhaps Florus was unable to restore order having only a limited military
capability, but his oppressive and corrupt regime helped swell the ranks of the
disaffected. Josephus gives no precise details of Florus’ behaviour except for the
part he played in the events that triggered the revolt. However, he does lay the
blame for the revolt firmly on his shoulders: ‘it was Florus who forced us to go
to war’.21 Not surprisingly given his attitude towards the procurators in general,
the Roman historian Tacitus agrees: ‘the Jews put up with the situation until the
procuratorship of Gessius Florus, under him war broke out’.22
In ad 66, the legate of Syria, Cestius Gallus, realized that affairs in Judaea were
far from satisfactory so he decided to pay the province a visit. Florus was not
sent back to Rome, most probably because no specific charges had been made
against him but Gallus did send a report to the emperor Nero impressing on him
the gravity of the situation and the dissatisfaction the Jews felt towards Florus’
procuratorship. Josephus implies Florus now deliberately worked to incite revolt
in order to divert attention from him and prevent a direct appeal by the Jews to
Rome. Nevertheless, there were other factors at play, those of an internal nature
amongst the ruling class.
This page intentionally left blank
 4

The Causes of Revolution According to Josephus (II)

INTERNAL DIVISIONS
I warned them not to act recklessly and with such utter madness to expose
their country, their families and themselves to the direst perils. (Life 19)

There is great emphasis placed by some scholars on the fact that from the outset
the revolt was led by the ruling class in order to keep their prominence within
Jewish society once Roman backing had been withdrawn, and who then tried to
establish themselves within an independent Jewish state.1 The pivotal point came
when they refused to hand over the culprits who had insulted the procurator
Florus. These young men were the sons of notables and many references are cited
in Josephus’ accounts to the young being at the forefront of dissent: ‘The fathers
have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge’.2 Within Judaea
there was little cohesion between the various Jewish factions, during the early
phases of the conflict the internal divisions amongst the various groups resulted
in civil war, first between the peace party and the insurgents and later between
the rival factions of the insurgents.3 The Jews did not present a united front to
Rome until the final stages of the war.
The Jewish religious leaders did not as a whole support the war. After the
end of Herodian rule the High Priests had been entrusted with the leadership
of the nation and Josephus tells us that it was the High Priests who led the
‘peace party’. Although Josephus recognizes the implications of civil strife he
is less illuminating about the actual nature of these divisions. He describes the
factions in various ways, bandits, extremists, terrorists and religious fanatics. The
implications are that this was a class struggle and this is generally accepted by
most scholars, one in particular takes this a stage further and uses four passages
from JA to demonstrate extensively this was not just a division between rich and
poor but a power struggle within the ruling class itself.4
However, there are problems interpreting Josephus’ accounts. It is not clear
if he deliberately chooses to omit certain facts by covering them with a blanket
of generalities interpreted whichever way you choose, or whether the author
was blinded by his own role and prejudices of the situation he described. In JW
he clearly states the cause of the disaster came from within, ‘since the blame lay
40 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

with no foreign nation’. In a number of texts Josephus emphasizes the guilt of

the Jewish ‘war party’. Also in JW he maintains it was the war party that forced
peaceful inhabitants in the towns to revolt and he later states it was the same party
that pushed for the suspension of the daily sacrifice for the emperor.
But who exactly comprised the war party? One scholar describes the emergence
of a group, in essence Pharisaic, which he calls the Fourth Philosophy, a
philosophy that ‘sowed the seed from which sprang strife between factions and
the slaughter of fellow citizens’.5 This new philosophy instigated the waves of civil
strife and murder so characteristic of the period. Josephus gives an account of
its inception, stating it began under the auspices of Judas of Galilee and Saddok,
with the rebellion of ad 6, ‘the zeal that Judas and Saddok inspired in the younger
elements meant the ruin of our cause’.6 This party was more extreme than the
Pharisees, for they displayed an irresistible passion for liberty and believed they
should have no master but God. According to Josephus ‘the folly that ensued
began to afflict the nation after Gessius Florus’.7 However, it may have been
naive of Josephus to suggest this was the cause of the war with Rome. From this
philosophy sprang the brigands and bandits Josephus speaks of.
However Josephus also considered the theological implications in this
innovation in Jewish Philosophy, which he believed brought immediate
consequences as well as chastisement from heaven, by its flouting of the
precepts set out by Moses, as given in Against Apion, that provided the basis
of a unified Jewish nation. Their innovation appears to be their equation of
the Evil Kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy with Rome and the end of days.8 The
theological implications weigh heavily with Josephus when he considered the
actions and motives of the rebels, everything they did was coloured by his
advocacy of the Law being the only source of harmony and transgression being
punished by divine intervention. Josephus tells us little else about this Fourth
Philosophy but we must accept originally it was in essence a religious rather than
a political movement. He also says nothing tangible about the relationship of this
philosophy with the Zealot movement or the Sicarii, which makes it difficult to
reconstruct the relationship between the rebels of ad 6 and those of ad 66. He
is also our only authority for the existence of the Sicarii who, it is believed, can
be traced back to Judas of Galilee, inherited by his grandson, Menahem, and
finally by their commander, a relative of Menahem, Eleazar b. Yair who led the
final confrontation with Rome at Masada, where the philosophy of ‘death before
long dishonour’ fitted well with the Fourth Philosophy’s ideals (see Chapter 14
for a full account of the speech made by Eleazar). In this text however, the rebels
under Eleazar b. Yair, are called Zealots by Josephus, which appears to indicate a
link between the two groups.
On the other hand, it seems Josephus finds no real need to be precise in
his attribution of specific events to specific factions, they are all transgressors
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I I ) 41

therefore all come under the same general banner. When he was not using
derogatory terminology to describe the rebels, then he used the terms, Sicarii
and Zealot almost synonymously. If we assume that the Sicarii were the natural
successors of the Fourth Philosophy, then who exactly were the Zealots and what
connection did they have with both groups?
From Josephus’ accounts a picture emerges of the revolt being led by the
Zealots who were opposed to men of distinction, but he contradicts this in JW
when he says members of notable families headed the Zealot movement.

These leaders were Eleazar, son of Gion, the most influential man of the party, from his
ability both in conceiving appropriate measures and in carrying them into effect, and a
certain Zacharias, son of Amphicalleus, both being of priestly descent.9

This seems more plausible as only members of these families would have had
access to the treasury to be able to issue the high quality coinage of the period.
According to Josephus in JW the Zealots do not appear on the scene until the
beginning of the conflict, they are the group against which the leading High
Priests are attempting to incite the people of Jerusalem. In the absence of any
further specific explanation from Josephus, various hypotheses have been put
forward to explain who the Zealots were. Some say the Zealots came from within
the ruling class, while others offer a more radical view.10 According to them it
appears the attack on the Zealots was due to the fact they were trying to form a
new government not made up of the priestly aristocracy. It is believed the group,
mentioned by Josephus in JW made up of several bands of brigands that entered
the city and formed a coalition, were Zealots. Once inside the city these brigand
bands attacked the High Priests and set about forming a new government. The
hypothesis is that the Zealots comprised ordinary displaced persons, who fled to
Jerusalem as their only recourse against Roman violence. He believes they had
no connection with the Fourth Philosophy and were not a religious sect. It is
more than feasible the Roman conquest provoked the formation of such brigand
bands. Indeed it is possible such people swelled the ranks of the dissidents, but
the subsequent organization and actions of this group suggest it was more than
just a peasant’s revolt. Also this theory does not reconcile how the original leaders
of the revolt in Jerusalem, Eleazar b. Ananias and Simon b. Gamaliel, were allied
with the Zealot movement or how they would have become leaders of bands of
displaced people. It has been pointed out there is no great prominence of bandit
leaders in the initial uprising, it would seem they took advantage of the situation,
but were not responsible for it.
There is, however, another theory; that the word Zealot was a title, based on
a Biblical verse from the book of Numbers adopted by those who followed the
ideals of the Fourth Philosophy.
42 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Josephus says Menahem, Judas’ grandson, came to Jerusalem accompanied by

armed Zealots and this statement is used to link the Zealots with the Sicarii and
subsequently both groups to the Fourth Philosophy. The death of Menahem
resulted in his followers returning to their stronghold at Masada, while the more
moderate element remained in Jerusalem under the leadership of Eleazar b.
Ananias who was a moderate revolutionary not a Zealot.
Therefore the Sicarii were the armed branch of the Zealots so the term Sicarii
is a description not a title, which could have been applied to the extreme activist
wing of the Zealot movement. However, there is one other source that may
give clarification of who the Sicarii really were. In Acts (31.38) the term Sicarii
is used in connection with the messianic figure of the Egyptian Jew, during
the procuratorship of Felix, who descended on Jerusalem with 4,000 Sicarii.
Surely it would be implausible that 4,000 armed dissidents accompanied this
charismatic figure? The resulting massacre by Felix’s troops suggests this was no
armed uprising but that these people comprised ordinary followers of a specific
doctrine. There is also another point to consider that the attitude of the Sicarii
with regard to political assassination was basic to Zealot ideas rather than just
the actions of an extremist wing.
The various leaders of the different factions have been designated by some in
the following way; the Pro-Romans, which included King Agrippa and members
of the High Priestly families; the moderate revolutionaries, those who were
willing to come to terms with Rome, (Eleazar b. Ananias, Ananus and Josephus);
the Nationalist element (Idumaeans, Simon b. Giora), these people were not
called Zealots by Josephus and appear to have had their own socio/religious
agenda; indeed it has been argued the preacher could be identified with the
dissident leader mentioned in the Habbakuk peser, called the Preacher of Lies.12
Those who adhered to the Fourth Philosophy increased their influence and
following as the war progressed; the hard-core revolutionaries (Eleazar b. Yair)
and finally the Zealot faction which had split in two, the Sicarii led by b.Yair plus
the Jerusalem Zealots led by Eleazar b. Simon. As Simon held the military booty
taken at Beth Horon he virtually held the reins of government. Later financial
needs coupled with Eleazar’s (b. Ananias) intrigues influenced the people to hand
supreme command over to him. This hypothesis seems to be fairly accurate given
the difficulties inherent in trying to reconstruct events solely from Josephus’
narratives. It provides a link between the rebels of ad 6 and those of ad 66, and it
also highlights the significant consequences of faction fighting within the ruling
class in Jerusalem.
Both theories have points to commend them, however certain assumptions
are made that cannot be substantiated. First, what if Josephus’ words in JA are
misrepresented:
 T H E C AU S E S O F R E V O L U T I O N A C C O R D I N G T O J O S E P H U S ( I I ) 43

My reason for giving this brief account of it [Fourth Philosophy] is chiefly that the
zeal which Judas and Saddok inspired in the younger element meant the ruin of our
cause.13

. . .and he is not linking the Fourth Philosophy with Sicarii or Zealot, merely
implying the idea of the Philosophy, i.e. no master but God, was carried to
extremes by the later generation, for whom it became a political issue rather
than a spiritual one? There is also, no tangible evidence to connect the members
of Judas’ family with the doctrine of the Fourth Philosophy, or indeed some
inherited messianic tradition, other than their name, and certainly nothing to
imply this Philosophy advocated violent resistance to Rome. It has been pointed
out Judas’ teaching of no master but God, gave a ‘Jewish legal rationale for
resistance to Rome’, but its concept was originally one of non-violent non-co-
operation rather than violent extremism.
The implications are the Zealots and Sicarii were basically one and the same,
the Sicarii being the armed wing of the extremist Zealots, is misleading, the
Sicarii were carrying out political killings of Jews who sided with Rome, often
being paid by members of the different elitist factions to do so. The Zealots, on
the other hand appear to be members of the ruling class, the lower priests, who
had the support of the populace and the help of the Sicarii under Menahem. But
when Menahem tried to take over leadership of the revolt he was executed and
his followers dispersed back to Masada, this does not imply they shared even
the basic ideologies, so how is it possible they could have been the armed wing of
the Zealot movement? Also, the fact that Menahem and his band infiltrated into the
Temple by stealth shows that they were not invited to join the revolt by Eleazar.
Josephus’ lack of information and ambiguous terminology also makes this
aspect of the revolt difficult to decipher. The Sicarii do not appear to have been
proactive before ad 44, neither do they take part in any of the major battles of
the revolt or influence other revolutionary groups. The failed takeover bid for
power by Menahem shows Josephus’ claim that the Fourth Philosophy’s heirs
were solely responsible for the revolt is far from true. If we interpret the rest
of Josephus’ narratives correctly then the Sicarii were nothing more than hired
assassins who would join whichever group was in the ascendancy. The Fourth
Philosophy started in Galilee yet the revolt had not started there, nor in the
countryside. It began in two urban centres Jerusalem and Caesarea, and it is
apparent the common denominator was fighting between Jews and Gentiles,
only then during the whole of the war, were the Jews actually united. Once they
began fighting each other their purpose for doing so, of which there appear to
have been many was lost.
In all there were five separate factions all with their own agendas, each
one accused the other of bringing these events about and blurred the issue,
44 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

each faction tried to justify its claims to lead a new independent Jewish state.
It is possible that the most prominent feature of the revolt can be found in
nationalism, and this can be traced back to the time of the Maccabees, however
unlike that period of Jewish history, the Jews of the first revolt lacked unity. From
the time of Herod the Great it appears that a duality was created between Jews
and non-Jews as well as between Orthodox Jews and Hellenized Jews, resulting
in the emergence of two separate nationalities.
What is apparent is that the war with Rome was running simultaneously with
a civil war instigated by the collapse of the ruling class, which in turn opened
the floodgates to dissident elements who had been waiting in the wings for just
such an opportunity; this was not the first instance of civil war, for there had
been one prior to this during the reign of Alexander Janneaus (103–76 bc). This
opportunity could only have come about in such circumstances.
But was the collapse of the ruling class the underlying cause of the war with
Rome or was it ‘the occupying power and the nationalists reaction on one
another, each provoking the other to further excesses until the final explosion
came’?14 That final explosion occurred in the town of Caesarea in May ad 66.
 5

Insurrection: ad 65–66

From this date were sown in the city the seeds of its impending fall. (JW 2:276)

In April ad 65, before the legate Cestius Gallus’ report on the procurator Gessius
Florus could be acted upon, revolt was triggered by an incident involving the Jews
of Caesarea Maritima, the provincial capital. The quarrel over civic rights was an
old one and had flared up before in the 50s during the procuratorship of Felix.
The quarrel mainly concerned the right of the Jewish community as a whole to
have citizenship. The Jews had settled in Caesarea in large numbers as resident
aliens, almost a parallel position to those Jews who lived in Alexandria. The Jews
demanded they should take precedence over the Greek population, claiming
the founder of the city Herod the Great was a Jew, therefore making Caesarea a
Jewish city. This statement, despite being totally untrue, was also hypocritical,
as the Jews had never accepted Herod as a Jew. Herod originally built the city as
a model to Hellenistic (Greek) culture, therefore the city contained a large port
and many Hellenistic civic buildings; to the south there was an amphitheatre
and circus for chariot racing, as well as a great monument to his patron Caesar
Augustus in whose honour the city had been named.
However, there were also underlying factors for the Jews’ claims: the Jews of
Caesarea were wealthier than the Greeks who lived there and no doubt felt they
contributed greatly to the city’s economic prosperity so consequently deserved
citizenship so that they could gain control over municipal government. The
Greeks, on the other hand were determined the Jews should remain metics
(disenfranchised) as they rightly believed Caesarea had been founded as a gentile
city; perhaps more importantly in their eyes, it was they who supplied the troops
to Rome that kept the Jews in order.
Towards the end of Felix’s procuratorship street fighting had broken out in
the town. The local authorities did their best to punish those who instigated the
trouble in an attempt to keep the peace, but this had the opposite effect, and
Felix was forced to send troops against the Jews, for it was they who had initially
caused the problem, finally getting them to capitulate.
Felix sent a delegation from both sides to Rome, which resulted with the
emperor Nero deciding in favour of the Greeks. According to Josephus the Greek
envoys bribed one of Nero’s freedmen secretaries to make sure of a favourable
46 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

result, and this may well be true. Nero confirmed the status quo of the Jews, they
could still have individual citizenship but it would not be granted to them as a
body. The Jews angered by this response returned home, determined to keep
the quarrel alive, and Josephus explicitly cites their part in this continuing strife
as kindling the flames of war. This long-standing quarrel finally erupted in an
incident in ad 66 that Josephus believed triggered the revolt.
The synagogue in Caesarea had been built on land owned by a Greek. The
Jews wished to purchase some extra land that adjoined their synagogue, the
Greek refused to sell and then promptly started to build on it, in such a way that
it blocked the front of the synagogue. A wealthy Jewish financier had offered
Florus a bribe to officially restrain the building activities, which Florus accepted,
but then did nothing more than instruct the commander of the cavalry unit
in the city to keep an eye on the situation: effectively he left the two groups to
sort it out. The following day was the Sabbath and when the Jews arrived at the
synagogue they found some Greek youths sacrificing cockerels on the steps of
the building. This act represented to the Jews a violation of the Torah (the Law
as set out in the canonical books of the Bible), the synagogue and the Sabbath
had been profaned and the Jews labelled unclean because the book of Leviticus
specified this particular ritual for curing leprosy.
The inevitable riot ensued and the Jews, unprepared for battle fled, taking with
them the scrolls of the Law. Thirteen of their leaders went to the city of Sebaste to
appeal to Florus for help but he promptly had them arrested for having removed
the scrolls, a completely incomprehensible action by the procurator. Perhaps
Florus’ pagan background had something to do with this, because the removal
of a sacred object from a temple would represent to a pagan an evil portent for
the city. The hostility continued to simmer in Caesarea before a final violent
outburst occurred a few weeks later in Jerusalem.
Public anger in Jerusalem over the incident in Caesarea had been reaching
boiling point so when Gessius Florus sent to Jerusalem requesting 17 talents
(roughly 120,000 denarii) from the Temple treasury for ‘Caesar’s needs’, saying
he would come personally to Jerusalem to get it, he was met with hostility.
Earlier, in ad 64, Agrippa and other leading members of the elite had decided to
spend money from the Treasury on the construction of a pavement, which may
have been in response to earlier appropriations of funds by greedy procurators,
Agrippa anticipated similar occurrences in the future.1 Some of the younger
members of the Jewish ruling class found Florus’ demand offensive and decided
to ridicule him by holding a street collection for him. Indeed the perpetrators
of the offence came from members of the ruling class. It is feasible that Eleazar
b. Ananias’ son was one of them, hence the reluctance to hand them over to
Florus.2
 INSURRECTION: ad 65–66 47

Some of the malcontents railed on the procurator in the most opprobrious terms and
carrying round a basket begged coppers for him as for an unfortunate destitute.3

Florus was outraged, but instead of going to Caesarea to deal with the trouble
there, he arrived with a small force. A centurion, named Capito, with 50 men was
sent ahead to clear the way. He entered the city and took up residence in the royal
palace, the next day he convened a tribunal and called all the leading Jews of the
Council (Sanhedrin) to demand they identify and arrest all those who had been
involved in the collection so they could be punished; but the Sanhedrin refused,
so Florus set his troops to sack the upper city. The soldiers looted extensively and
took many prisoners, some of who were executed by crucifixion, amongst whom
were Jews of Roman citizenship whose equestrian rank exempted them from that
particular punishment. Queen Berenice, Agrippa’s sister, who happened to be in
Jerusalem at the time:

witnessed with the liveliest emotion the outrages of the soldiers, and constantly sent her
cavalry commanders and life guards to Florus to implore him to put a stop to the carnage.
But he, regarding neither the number of the slain nor the exalted rank of his suppliant,
but only the profit accruing from the plunder, turned a deaf ear to her prayers.4

The High Priests finally managed to quieten the situation and persuaded the
populace to greet the two Roman cohorts despatched from Caesarea with civility
as Florus had requested. Unfortunately the troops, on his orders, received their
greeting in silence and when some of the more nationalistic elements in the
crowd started calling abuse at Florus, the troops charged them; in the ensuing
stampede many Jews were killed. As the cohorts attempted to advance through
the city, heading towards the Antonia fortress, the Jews blocked the narrow streets
with improvised barricades and took up positions on the flat roofs; from here
they pelted the troops with a hail of missiles, mainly stones and tiles, until the
troops were forced to take refuge in the palace on the western hill.
The Jews it seemed had won a victory: Florus was outnumbered and summoned
the High Priests to the palace to inform them he was withdrawing to Caesarea
leaving behind one of the newly arrived group of cohorts (500 men) to reinforce
the regular garrison. These men were meant to represent imperial power but
remained beleaguered in the palace, completely unable to patrol the streets and
exert any imperial presence.
Florus, the Sanhedrin and Queen Berenice sent individual reports of the
incident to Cestius Gallus. Gallus’ emissary was despatched to Jamnia, where the
Sanhedrin and High Priests had already gone to meet with King Agrippa. The
whole group then proceeded to Jerusalem where Gallus’ emissary inspected the
scene of the riot, took note of the devastation caused by Florus’ troops, sacrificed
48 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

in the Temple as a goodwill gesture and then went back to Gallus to report the
Jews were loyal to Rome but hostile only to Florus. However, by now the Jews
had little confidence Gallus would act and have Florus sent back to Rome. They
urged King Agrippa and the High Priests to send a delegation to the emperor
Nero to complain. Agrippa was not happy with this course of action but realized
if he denied the Jews their request then he risked open revolt.
Agrippa II’s father, Herod Agrippa I (also known as Julius Marcus Agrippa)
was the grandson of Herod the Great, and a spokesman of compromise. He had
been brought up in Rome in the imperial household and succeeded in winning
the favours of the emperors Caligula and his successor Claudius. In ad 37
Caligula gave him the lands that once belonged to Agrippa’s uncle Philip, and
when his other uncle Herod Antipas was deposed he was also given his lands.
Agrippa intervened on behalf of the Jews when Caligula threatened to have the
Temple desecrated with the erection of his statue.
He returned to Rome and was present when Caligula was assassinated in
January ad 41; and played an important role as mediator between Claudius and
the senate, helping Claudius become emperor. In gratitude Claudius bestowed
Judaea and Samaria on him; this amounted to nearly all the lands originally
held by his grandfather, Herod the Great. Agrippa now held the important city
of Caesarea, and perhaps more importantly his descent from the Hasmoneans
meant the Jews accepted him more readily as their king. He appeared to be a
zealous Jew, offering sacrifice (as well as donating the golden chain given him by
Caligula) to the Temple on his arrival in ad 41. His religious zeal was however,
superficial for his attitude towards Judaism was a facade designed to appease his
subjects; Agrippa was thoroughly Hellenized and in many respects behaved as a
Hellenistic monarch. However his rule was short-lived and he died three years
later. Claudius pronounced his 16-year-old son Agrippa II his successor but as
he was still a minor, the emperor’s advisers dissuaded Claudius from installing
him on the throne. So, inevitably the province was reinstated and placed under
procuratorial control. Nevertheless, the Roman government was obliged to offer
the disinherited youth a kingdom. In ad 48 Agrippa II’s uncle Herod of Chalcis
died and he inherited this small independent kingdom that lay midway between
Beirut and Damascus. He was also granted authority over the Temple, and had
the right to appoint the High Priest.
Like his father, Agrippa II had been brought up and educated in Rome. It
is possible he had remained in Rome until ad 53, when Claudius added the
territories once ruled by his father’s uncle Philip the Tetrarch to his realm; these
territories ranged throughout the north and east of Palestine, including northern
Transjordan, eastern Galilee, and on the death of Claudius, Nero added the city
of Tiberias, the capital of Galilee and parts of Peraea.
Agrippa took up residencies in Jerusalem and Caesarea. In Jerusalem he
 INSURRECTION: ad 65–66 49

enlarged the royal palace and renovated the Temple. In his own kingdom he
re-founded the town of Panias (Caesarea Philippi), and renamed it Neronias after
the emperor Nero, Claudius’ successor. Herod Agrippa II was the most powerful
Jew in Palestine. Although his territories did not include Judaea his influence
there was great.
As already noted he had been on his way back from Alexandria when the
trouble first broke out and he received a delegation from Jerusalem asking him
to intervene in the affair. Agrippa knew the best course of action would be to
make the Jews realize their grievance was not with Rome per se but with Florus.
With his sister Berenice by his side he summoned a meeting in the gymnasium
where he made an impassioned speech calling on all moderate Jews to rebuild
the porticoes of the Antonia, (which they had destroyed in the recent outburst
of violence), and pay their taxes, otherwise it would be tantamount to declaring
war on Rome, a war they could not possibly hope to win. It is more than likely
Josephus was amongst the multitude gathered to hear Agrippa’s speech, which
he reports in six pages of text, although it is unlikely he reproduced a verbatim
account. The speech reflects the opinions of the upper-class Jews who favoured
peace with Rome.

when the Romans have won . . . they will make an example of you to other nations by
burning down your holy city and destroying your entire race . . . not even if you survive
will you find a place of refuge, since every people recognises the lordship of Rome.5

Agrippa further reasoned with them:

You have not paid your tribute to the emperor and you have demolished the porticoes
of the Antonia. You can only clear yourselves of the charges of rebellion if you rebuild
the porticoes and pay your taxes. Florus does not own the fortress and Florus will not
get your money

It appeared Agrippa made a favourable impression for everyone agreed to

rebuild the Temple porticoes pulled down in the riot and to collect and pay the
tribute to Rome, which amounted to 40 talents (approximately 282,325 denarii).
However, when Agrippa repeatedly suggested they should obey Florus until
another procurator could be sent to replace him the Jews remained adamant
and demanded he be recalled and turning on Agrippa, hurling abuse as well as
stones, hounding the king and his entourage out of Jerusalem. Despite his un-
ceremonious exit Agrippa tried to put the Jews on a better footing with Rome by
organizing the collection of the tax arrears from the rest of the country: however,
the way was now paved for total confrontation with Rome.
There were two further events that heralded a complete break with Rome,
50 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

the first was the occupation by rebel forces of the fortress of Masada, built by
Herod the Great as his desert stronghold, and the second was the suspension
of the daily sacrifice in the Temple for the emperor and his family. The Talmud
mentions Zacariah, son of Amphicallus as the scholar, who at the outset of the
revolt was responsible for the suspension of sacrifice; he was also a protagonist
of the fundamental Zealot doctrine. Josephus however, ascribes the suspension
of the sacrifice to Eleazar b. Ananias.6
Agrippa’s unsuccessful attempts to persuade the mob, and his subsequent
flight from Jerusalem split the Jewish ruling class in two, a small minority sided
with the revolutionaries. Eleazar b. Ananias, who was from a High Priestly
family and who held the post of Temple captain attempted to place himself at
the head of the revolutionary movement. Eleazar persuaded the Temple officials
to accept no more sacrifices from foreigners. This meant the daily sacrifices for
the well-being of the emperor and his family would be abandoned, abolishing
the imperial cult at Jerusalem; this act, for Josephus, was the foundation stone
of the war with Rome.
The pro-Herodian party, the so-called ‘peace party’, was led by the ex High
Priest, Ananias (Eleazar’s father). Roman rule did not pose any serious threat
to the Jewish religion, and the Jewish leaders, whether Pharisee or Sadducee,
did not as a body support war with Rome. Ananias called a mass meeting in the
Temple at the Court of Women to try to persuade the revolutionaries against
this disastrous course of action, and to restore the daily sacrifice for the emperor.
When the advice once again went unheeded they began to prepare for a counter
revolutionary coup, as they realized that force would be the only way of curbing
the rebels, with that in mind they appealed to Florus and Agrippa for military aid.
They were still in control of the Upper City and looked to Agrippa and Florus to
help oust the insurgents, led by Ananias’ son Eleazar the captain of the Temple,
who were in control of the Temple and the Lower City. Only Agrippa responded
and sent two thousand cavalry, with whose aid the Herodians were able to keep
control of the Upper City.
However, the revolutionaries led by Eleazar and his supporters, still held
the Lower City, which included the Temple, which had now been turned into a
citadel. The Romans remained in the Antonia fortress and Herod’s palace. For
seven days the two opposing forces confronted each other in a series of skirmishes
but the Herodian forces were unable to gain any ground. Finally on the Feast of
Wood Carrying (sometime around 14 August) the revolutionaries were joined
by bands of pilgrims from the countryside including contingents of Sicarii and
Zealots. Amongst these groups were agitators who saw this as more a social
revolution, and hoped it would be instrumental in achieving economic reforms
that would benefit the poor. The Herodian forces were now heavily outnumbered
as renewed attacks on them began. Finally they withdrew to the royal palace with
 INSURRECTION: ad 65–66 51

the revolutionaries in pursuit. Many Jewish nobles fled with the Herodian forces,
some even took flight through underground sewers.
With the aid of the Sicarii, the revolutionaries set fire to the houses of Agrippa
and Berenice, as well as the house of the High Priest, Ananias. The public archives
where many debtors records were kept, was also put to the flames, a move
apparently designed to win the support of the poor.

The Jews in the Temple excluded their opponents from this ceremony, but along with
some feebler folk numbers of the sicarii, so they call the brigands who carried a dagger
in their bosom, forced their way in. . .they next carried their combustibles to the public
archives eager to destroy the money lenders bonds and to prevent the recovery of debts,
in order to win over a host of grateful debtors and to cause a rising of the poor against
the rich, sure of impunity.7

The rebels had recognized the necessity of winning popular support to give
them the power they needed to declare themselves the popular leaders of an
independent nation. Meanwhile, Agrippa’s troops, along with some of the
Herodian nobles and defeated royalist soldiers had taken refuge in Herod’s
palace. The following day the rebels made an assault on the three massive towers
of Herod’s palace where the Roman cohort had taken refuge, situated by the
north-west corner of Temple Mount, and massacred the entire Roman garrison;
incidentally the massacre happened on the Sabbath, which in Josephus’ eyes was
a serious crime that would not go unpunished by God. It was a crime that would
certainly not go unpunished by Rome.
Only the palace itself still remained in Herodian control, and the defenders
managed to beat off the assaults of the revolutionaries, turning it into a siege.
Menahem, the son of Judas of Galilee and his contingent of Sicarii arrived from
Masada where they had infiltrated the fortress there, overwhelmed the garrison,
broken open the armoury and equipped themselves with weapons; now they
arrived in Jerusalem to assist with the siege. It appears that Menahem like his
father Judas had messianic pretensions and expounded a somewhat extreme
ideal of freedom. This group was the most committed of all the rebel factions
and knew how to fight and organize a battle. When he arrived in Jerusalem,
Josephus tells us, he was granted control over the attack on Herod’s palace and
the camp of cohorts left behind by Florus. Menahem and his men dug a mine
beneath one of the towers along the outer wall, fired the props and watched as
the whole structure collapsed. However, the defenders had built a second wall
behind the tower, so there was no breach. Unfortunately, the defenders could not
capitalize on this for they lacked sufficient numbers, and were by now tired and
hungry. Their assailants had shown it would only be a matter of time before the
palace would be taken.
52 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

On 6 September the Herodians sought terms with the revolutionaries. The

king’s troops and any other Jewish defenders were permitted to surrender and
leave. However, their treatment of the Roman troops was very different, they
refused them terms, so the Romans retreated to the three towers on the northern
side of the palace, where they soon came under siege but they managed to
hold out for a further 11 days, during which time the High Priest, Ananias had
been found hiding in an aqueduct and was executed by Menahem. Finally in
mid-September the cohort capitulated and agreed to surrender. In return for
surrendering their arms they were promised safe conduct but as they were leaving
they were massacred. The moderates now realized that Rome would definitely
intervene to avenge the two massacres of their forces.
The struggle against the Herodian counter-revolution had resulted in a political
shift, which manifested in political disunity. To the aristocratic nationalists the
Zealot movement appeared menacing. Eleazar, the captain of the Temple who
had taken power in May, now led the revolutionary government, which although
anti-Roman and anti-Herodian, was a still a government comprised of property
owners, who naturally feared a ‘people’s revolution’. They realized if Roman
taxes could be abolished then the people might decide the same idea could be
applied to paying rent, it would even be possible land could be redistributed
amongst the poor; in fact a nationalistic revolution could easily turn into a social
revolution.
The disunity amongst the rebel factions during the last days of the siege
reached a climax with the murder of Menahem, who tried to usurp the leadership
from Eleazar, whose father and uncle Menahem had murdered. Menahem and
his group were taken by surprise and attacked in force on Temple Mount; some
escaped the attack but were eventually tracked down, including Menahem who
was tortured to death. Those of Menahem’s supporters who managed to escape
fled back to the desert stronghold of Masada under the leadership of Eleazar b.
Yair, a relative of Menahem.
The successes of the rebels in Jerusalem was swiftly followed by further
successful attacks upon Roman forces and two other Herodian fortresses fell
into rebel hands; the Roman garrison at Cypros near Jericho was massacred,
and the fortress of Machaerus, was evacuated by the Roman forces and settled by
civilians: Josephus says this was in retaliation for the massacre at Caesarea.8
The breakdown of Roman authority now became the impetus for settling
old scores in cities where tension had been greatest amongst the Greeks and
Jews. Naturally, the violence once again began in Caesarea, where the Greeks
slaughtered or expelled the entire Jewish population; according to Josephus this
amounted to twenty thousand inhabitants, an act which Josephus sees as divine
retribution on the Jews for their massacre of the Roman garrison.
 INSURRECTION: ad 65–66 53

Every decent citizen being terrified at the prospect of paying for the misdeeds of the
insurgents.9

The reprisals were swift and Jews took revenge on Greek citizens in cities of the
Decapolis and the Phoenician coast, which in turn led to counter reprisals against
Jews in other Syrian cities. Conflicts and massacres spread throughout Syria and
the violence extended as far as Alexandria in Egypt. Josephus tells us many Jews
were forced to take up arms in self-defence and those who attempted to speak out
against the massacres were annihilated. Everyone it seems was under threat; soon
Palestine was split in two. Most of the big cities of the coast and the Decapolis
remained Greek. Jerusalem, the Herodian fortresses and most of the small villages
and towns of Galilee, Judaea, Peraea and Idumaea were in Jewish hands. The
effect of this was to turn a minor revolt in Jerusalem, and conflict in Caesarea,
from incidents in a small province to a major crisis in the eastern empire.
In JW (supplemented by references in JA), several paragraphs are devoted
to a direct discussion of the main issues of the conflict, as Josephus saw it. The
revolt was, for him, triggered by the following three incidents: Florus’ attempts
to obtain money from the Temple treasury which incited further unrest, and
about which he did nothing, furthermore he exacerbated matters by marching on
Jerusalem instead of trying to quell the unrest in Caesarea, thereby leaving ‘a free
field to sedition’. This in turn led to the abandonment of the daily sacrifice for the
emperor and the provocation that set the course for full-scale war with Rome.
This page intentionally left blank
 6

The March on Jerusalem

Cestius, now that on all sides war was being made upon the Jews,
decided to remain inactive no longer. (JW 2:499)

Josephus does not tell us if the legate of Syria, Cestius Gallus had contact with
Florus or any of the moderate elements in Jerusalem who had called for assistance.
Nevertheless Gallus had already assembled the XII legion plus 2,000 picked men
from the other legions, in Antioch. It was a considerable force consisting of over
30,000 men, made up of 12,000 Roman legionaries, 5,600 supporting Roman
troops and over 14,000 auxiliaries furnished by neighbouring Roman allies that
began the march on Jerusalem. Sometime in September the pro-Roman Agrippa
and two other client kings, Antiochus IV of Commagene and Sohaemus of Emesa
led their forces in person, consisting of archers and cavalry, and accompanied
Gallus to Ptolemais, the normal base for an invasion of Judaea.
From Ptolemais the Romans launched an attack against the border town of
Zebulon in the north-west of Galilee; the rebels, who were ill-equipped and
lacked military training were soon overrun, and fled to the hills, leaving behind
plentiful supplies which aided the invading troops. The Romans sacked the
town and began to lay waste to the surrounding countryside in order to starve
the Jewish peasants into surrender. At first everything went well and the army
had no trouble subjugating the small, unorganized Jewish settlements. After
overrunning the frontier district of Galilee, Gallus marched south and set up his
base in Caesarea.
Here the bulk of the army was stationed while a smaller force was sent ahead
to secure sea communications by capturing Joppa on the coast. The inhabitants
there had no time to flee and the Romans slew them all, according to Josephus
the victims numbered over 8,000 in total. Another force was sent to the area of
Narbatene, which bordered on Caesarea. Once again the troops ravaged the country,
killing the inhabitants, burning their villages and pillaging their property.
Cestius despatched Caesennius Gallus, the commander of the XII legion to deal
with Galilee. All the rebels in the region fled to the mountain, called Asamon, and
here Caesennius faced them in battle. While the rebels held a superior position they
easily beat off the attack killing roughly 2,000 troops. However, when the Romans
gained higher ground the rebels were quickly defeated, not being able to withstand
56 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

the charge of the heavily armoured infantry, and also were not able to outrun
the cavalry. Most were killed although some managed to find a hiding place. The
rest of Galilee was secured without too much trouble, mainly due to the fact the
prosperous capital Sepphoris had taken a pro-Roman stance, and welcomed the
legions. The other small towns and villages offered no resistance; a few extremists
who had fled to the hills were eventually captured and summarily executed.
Caesennius then returned to Caesarea and rejoined Cestius and his troops. In
mid-October Cestius Gallus marched towards Jerusalem, burning and looting as
he went. At Lydda he razed the city to the ground, no doubt as a warning to the
people of Jerusalem of the military strength that was seemingly about to descend
on them. However, it was not all plain sailing for Gallus’ forces; there was a hard
pitched battle six miles (10 km) from the city that halted the army for three days.
The Jews were not about to capitulate and when Gallus’ force encamped at the
top of the Beth Horon defile, they abandoned the Feast of Tabernacles, made a
surprise attack and then penned the Romans in by occupying the heights that
commanded the road at Gibeon.
After three days, Agrippa made a final appeal for peace by sending two emissa-
ries to the rebels with an offer of free pardon from Gallus if they surrendered:

But the insurgents fearing that the prospect of an amnesty would induce the whole
multitude to go over to Agrippa, made a murderous assault upon his emissaries. Phoebus
was slain before he had uttered a syllable; Borcius was wounded but succeeded in
escaping. Any citizens who raised indignant protests were assailed with stones and clubs
and driven from the town.1

Gallus noted the internal divisions amongst the Jews and saw this as a favourable
opportunity for attack. He brought up the whole force, routed the enemy, and
pursued them to Jerusalem. In the belief he could easily take the city, Gallus
ignored the Jewish skirmishers and marched on. He established his camp a mile
to the north of the city on Mt Scopus, confident the disunity inside Jerusalem
would work in his favour. However, after three days there was no sign of surrender
so Gallus occupied and burnt the suburb of Bezetha, which the inhabitants had
abandoned, then he attacked the city walls in the vicinity of Herod’s palace, where
he encamped. Josephus says:

Had he, at that moment, decided to force his way through the walls he would have
captured the city forthwith, and the war would have been over.2

Five days later Gallus began an assault on the north wall of the Temple enclosure,
then unexpectedly withdrew his forces to Mt Scopus and began to retreat to
Caesarea. Josephus cannot give a valid reason for this sudden turn of events,
 T H E M A RC H O N J E RU S A L E M 57

which were unusual especially considering how close Gallus was to victory, the
peace party were ready to open the gates to him, and the city would have been
totally at his mercy: indeed his action seems inexplicable. The most tangible
reason Josephus can offer is that Florus had bribed the camp prefect, Tyrannius
Priscus, and most of the cavalry commanders, to dissuade Gallus from taking
the city. This does seem to be a rather feeble explanation when clearly Gallus
would presumably have had sound military reasons for his retreat; for example
the purely military logistics of the lack of a siege train, or the onset of winter
(for it was now early November, thereby curtailing the normal campaign season
and impeding Roman success), for supplies would have been short). The fact
these moderate factions, although they recognized the need for popular support,
still sought to gain power by seeking Roman patronage, is apparent from the
actions of Ananus b. Jonathan and others who tried to betray the city to Gallus.3
There was also the danger of counter attacks from the rebels in the hills, and also
the possibility that Gallus considered the offer to open the city gates was merely
a trap. Perhaps Josephus wanted to look no further for a reason. For Josephus,
being a Jew of Pharisaic origins, then the murder of the garrison, an act expressly
against the Law, was an act which would incur the wrath of God and warrant
divine retribution by prolonging the war and increasing the suffering of the
Jews.4 For had Gallus pursued this course of action and entered the city then,
there can be little doubt the revolt would have collapsed.
Gallus was now faced with a difficult task, his communications with the coast
were cut and as winter approached he had to find food for his army; he had no
other recourse than to get back to Caesarea as quickly as possible. The nature
of the terrain meant the Romans could not adopt the usual standard marching
formation, for this would have strung the army out along many miles, in order
to be secure they had to adopt the square column (agmen quadratum) a short,
wide formation enabling units to turn into a battle line quickly, facing in any
direction. The only drawback was that such a wide front slowed the army down,
especially when travelling over difficult terrain.
Gallus’ retreating forces were constantly harried by Jewish guerrillas under
the leadership of Eleazar ben Simon, who had taken over leadership of the
revolutionaries from Menahem. Militants from Jerusalem launched the first
attacks at the rear guard of the column. The following day about a mile from
the city Gallus was attacked from the hills by Jewish irregulars, equipped with
javelins, slings and stones. The Romans were surrounded on three sides and
any attempt at sorties up the slopes would result in them being cut off and
destroyed. The stragglers who fell behind in the column were quickly despatched
by Jewish forces. The situation gradually worsened and only when the baggage
was abandoned did the Romans make any headway, managing to reach their old
camp at Gibeon before nightfall.
58 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Gallus remained at Gibeon for two days but because many of the baggage
wagons had been abandoned, supplies were low. The Jews on the other hand
were gaining strength as more reinforcements arrived to swell their ranks. Gallus
ordered the draught and pack animals to be slaughtered, except for those that
carried the ammunition and artillery, and the army set off again on 8 November.
They travelled at first mainly through open country, which favoured the Romans,
as it meant Jewish slingers and javelin throwers had to keep their distance. Finally,
according to Josephus, they reached the narrow pass at Beth Horon where events
took a turn for the worse.
The Jews had taken position at the top of the pass and had enough time to
station men at the foot as well as on the precipices that hemmed the pass in on
either side. When the Romans entered they found themselves encircled and were
unable to operate on such a narrow front; the archers above easily picked off the
soldiers. Josephus says:

Cestius and his entire army were, indeed, within an ace of being captured; only the
intervention of night enabled the Romans to find refuge in Beth Horon. The Jews
occupied all the surrounding points and kept a lookout for their departure.5

However, the Romans secretly encamped the same night. Gallus selected 400 men
to take positions on the roofs of the village and call out the watchwords to give
the Jews the impression they were still there while the rest of the army made their
escape along the road in complete silence, travelling approximately three and a
half miles (5.6 km) before daybreak.
When the Jews realized the main force had escaped they overran and killed all
the remaining defenders of Beth Horon before setting off in pursuit. Gallus now
abandoned what remained of the baggage trains: it was not until they reached
Antipatris they finally shook off their Jewish pursuers. It had been a complete
military disaster for the Romans. The Jewish forces comprising mainly farmers
armed with javelins and stones had completely routed the invincible fighting
machine that was the Roman army. Roman losses amounted to roughly 6,000
men including at least three senior officers; they had lost armour and weapons,
several batteries of artillery and an entire baggage-train of supplies to the rebel
forces, this was no doubt the greatest Jewish victory for nearly 2,000 years.

Antipas who had been besieged with them, in the royal palace and disdained to fly, was
killed by the rebels. Cestius despatched Saul and his companions, at their request to Nero
in Achaia, to inform him of the straits to which they were reduced, to lay upon Florus
the responsibility for the war, for he hoped by exciting Nero’s resentment against Florus
to diminish the risk to himself.6
 T H E M A RC H O N J E RU S A L E M 59

For the other factions who remained their task was one of organising a govern-
ment that would lead them into war.
The defeat of Gallus meant any hope of negotiation with Rome was now lost,
the Jews were now totally committed to war. The first task was to establish an
independent government to oversee the necessary preparations for confrontation
with Rome. The defeat and retreat of Gallus finally committed the Jews to all-out
war. They now had a short respite before Roman reprisals would begin with a
vengeance, many of the peace party now hastily abandoned Jerusalem. Some
Herodian aristocrats who had stayed in Jerusalem, no doubt in the belief Rome
would be victorious in crushing the resistance, chose this moment to flee.

After the catastrophe of Cestius many distinguished Jews abandoned the city as
swimmers deserted a sinking ship.7

This left the anti-Roman aristocrats, the High Priests, who still enjoyed a certain
amount of prestige and influence with the people, who decided to bring the
situation under their control and establish a democratic republic.
The Jews who had pursued Cestius, on their return to Jerusalem, partly by
force, partly by persuasion brought over to their side those pro-Roman nobles
who had remained in the city. They assembled in the Temple and appointed
additional generals to conduct the war. Joseph b. Gorion and Ananus the
High Priest were elected to govern affairs in the city. The constitution of the
revolutionary government is ascertained from references in Josephus and
Maccabees.8 A council of state already existed in the Sanhedrin, which could be
invested with additional executive powers. The popular assembly (which had
existed during the time of the client kings but had been in abeyance during the
Roman procuratorships), was now reconstituted as the ultimate authority, with
the Temple court as its base.
It is at this point that Josephus refers to the followers of the prominent
extremist Eleazar b. Simon as Zealots. It has been suggested:

The absence of the term from Josephus’ narratives before the end of ad 66 suggests that
it was devised, or at any rate became generally current, only after the initial success of
the rebels in purging the holy city of gentile troops. The Zealots, perhaps with religious
considerations at first uppermost in their minds, seem to have been quite distinct from
the faction of sicarii led by Menahem and his family, and to have been centred on
Jerusalem, where in the fighting at the altar between the various factions they appear as
quite a close knit and well defined sect.9

Both Eleazar b. Simon and Eleazar b. Ananias were overlooked for the post of
supreme military commander, instead the council chose the High Priest Ananus
60 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

b. Ananus. He belonged to one of the elite High Priestly families in Jerusalem, his
father and four brothers had all served as High Priest. Ananus also had held that
position for only three months having been dismissed by King Agrippa and the
Roman procurator. Alongside him were another High Priest, a High Priest’s son
and three other priests from noble families, they were styled ‘generals’ (strategoi).
There were many secondary posts which may have gone to local leaders or token
plebeians, which helped the aristocracy keep control of the situation while
containing the popular mass movement by turning its leaders into officers and
administrators of a new Jewish state organized along Hellenistic lines.10
Josephus says Ananus was of the anti-Roman party, but he was also aware of
the problems confrontation with Rome could bring, so he hoped, by winning the
confidence of the extremists, he would be able to turn the situation round and
make them realize the futility of their aims and abandon their struggle. Ananus
and another general appointed as his colleague controlled Jerusalem. The other
general was Joseph b. Gorion who is mentioned only once by Josephus but not
heard of again. He does not appear to be a significant figure and a year later
Ananus has another colleague, Jesus b. Gamaliel. They ran affairs presumably
with the help of other family members and allies, although we have no clear
idea how this was accomplished. Control of Jerusalem was vital: the city held
sway over the rest of the country and was of immense political and religious
significance. Not only that but it was also the repository for the vast wealth of
the Temple treasury.
One of the first tasks of the new government was the minting of coinage, a
symbol of political independence, but it also served a practical purpose, to pay
expenses. The new government struck three denominations of shekel in silver,
the striking of which was a right denied by Rome to provinces. On the obverse
the chalice was represented, depicting a branch with three pomegranates on the
reverse. The rebel government continued striking these coins throughout the war,
and were inscribed with a variety of cult objects symbolizing the Temple cult and
dated from year 1 up to year 5.11 The second task was to repair the unfinished
north wall of Jerusalem; the ease with which Gallus had occupied Bezetha
highlighted the significance of getting this work done as soon as possible. The
long postponement of any Roman attack on the city meant they had three years
to do the work. The wall was raised to over 10 metres (35 ft) in height, however
the builders overlooked a section north of Herod’s tower called Hippicus and
failed to link the end of the new wall to the north-west angle of the old: this would
later prove to be a very costly mistake.
The rest of the country was divided into eight districts under subordinate
military governors. Apart from Jerusalem there was Peraea east of Jordan, one
in Galilee together with Gamala, a fortress in the south-west corner of Agrippa’s
territory of Gaulanitis in the north, two in Idumaea in the south and three in
 T H E M A RC H O N J E RU S A L E M 61

Judaea covering the approaches to the capital. The plan was to use the governors
to establish a centralized control over the country and utilize the disparate
militias as a regular army.
The various rebel factions also posed a problem as witnessed by the initial
fighting against the Herodian party in Jerusalem during the month of August
when Eleazar b. Ananias and his faction had killed Menahem. Ananus now
marginalized the most popular of the faction leaders, Eleazar b. Simon who with
his Zealot militia was the strongest faction by far. They had controlled Temple
Mount and had taken command of the booty brought back from the victory at
Beth Horon. Although Eleazar had been denied any prominent position within
the new government thereby losing control of the public funds, his forces could
not be dislodged from Temple Mount. Another of the popular leaders to fall
was Simon b. Giora who had been a distinguished commander in the campaign
against Gallus. He held the Roman spoils; money he had taken from Cestius,
and a great part of the public treasure. Ben Giora’s agenda was to instigate
a programme of social revolution for the poor and he used his subordinate
command to run a campaign of plundering against the wealthy estate owners. He
was driven from his base in northern Judaea by government forces from Gerasa
in the Decapolis but managed to flee to Masada where he carried on a similar
campaign in Idumaea.
Other leaders who commanded only small forces were assimilated into the
government administration. Three men were appointed to lead an attack on
the coastal city of Ascalon, Silas the Babylonian, a deserter from Agrippa’s army;
Niger the Peraean, and John the Essene. Ascalon contained a garrison of two
Roman auxiliary units which might have attacked the Jews from the rear while
they were concentrating on a Roman attack from the north. However, the Jewish
attack failed because it was ill-prepared and resulted in many Jewish casualties.
The government’s policy was to enrol militiamen willing to accept the
authority of military governors. They would receive payment, while new recruits
were enrolled in the regular government units. Josephus gives us some idea
how this worked when he describes the composition of the detachment sent by
Jerusalem to Galilee under the command of Jesus b. Gamaliel. The detachment
consisted of 600 men who received three months’ pay in advance, plus 3,000 civic
troops (politai) and 100 regulars (hoplitai). This is a good example of how the
new government tried to create a formal army in the hope the military balance
would shift against the independent militias and thereby curtail the threat to
property and power posed by the various bands of armed revolutionaries.
Many men had joined one or other of these various military factions. They
raided the houses of the rich and plundered estates to equip themselves with
supplies and arms. However, the various military factions were undisciplined
and uncoordinated.
62 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

The composition of many of the militia groups was fluid, with men coming
and going or changing allegiances as the mood took them: each militia primarily
owed allegiance to itself, its leaders and its own political, social or religious
agenda. In effect the militias exercised a veto over the government, who lacked
the necessary forces to be able to impose their will, therefore these independent
units controlled practically all the country. It was basically a class conflict between
the landed aristocratic classes and the mass of lower-class radicals. There was a
war on two fronts, the struggle with Rome and the internal class struggle; this
meant Judaea was in a very dangerous position as the threat of Roman invasion
came ever closer.
 7

Josephus in Galilee

They advised me to remain at my post and take precautions for Galilee. (Life 62)

The reasons for looking at events in Galilee as described by Josephus are twofold.
First, this is where Josephus spent the initial period of the revolt in command
of a vital military zone and about which he wrote two separate accounts one in
JW and the other in Life. In fact these accounts differ so much that this has shed
an unhealthy light on the veracity of his other works, especially JW. Second, do
his accounts of the events in Galilee help us to understand what was happening
in Jerusalem? And can we learn any more about the rebel factions to help clarify
the causes of the war?
The two parallel versions of Josephus’ time in Galilee are separated by a
20-year gap. Life contains more material about this period than JW, but where
the two overlap there are many discrepancies, both in chronology and factual
details. It is generally accepted Life was written to refute the accusations made
against him by Justus, who claimed Josephus was responsible for the revolt
at Tiberias. Justus of Tiberias was a local politician who after the war became
Agrippa’s secretary and an historian. Justus had reason to hate Josephus because
he imprisoned him and his father.1 Although others would argue against this,
as the refutation made by Josephus is placed at the end of the work suggesting
he was more concerned about the correctness of the war narrative as a whole,
rather than trying to vindicate himself.2 Some believe there is a possibility Life
was written for those people who were intimately involved with the events of ad
66/7, i.e. Jews, although a pagan readership was not precluded.3
There are three main hypotheses concerning the reasons for the discrepancies
in his two accounts. First, he made use of notes that he had taken during the
war, which he applied more extensively in Life. Second, the passing years helped
clarify those events, consequently he remembered more detail thereby adding
or detracting from his account accordingly. Also he could have subsequently
obtained additional information from others who had participated in the events
described. Third, he deliberately avoided telling the truth. There is a possibility
of a fourth option; that it could be a blend of all three, but taken overall Life is
probably the more accurate account.4
After Gallus’ defeat, most of the peace party had deserted Jerusalem, however
64 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Josephus elected to stay. He tells us those who remained were ‘persuaded’ by the
rebel faction; could it have been they were offered a tantalizing bribe? Josephus
tells us he sought asylum in the inner court of the Temple, the fortress of the
Antonia already being in their [rebel] hands. The inner court was occupied by
Eleazar b. Ananias and his followers and they excluded anyone from their group
who did not support their cause, therefore they must have believed Josephus was
willing to give his approval for their actions. He, on the other hand, implies it was
an act of prudence on his part, but his actual position is far from clear.

In such obvious and imminent peril we professed to concur in their views, but suggested
that they should make no move and leave the enemy alone if he advanced in order to gain
the credit of resorting to arms only in self-defence. In doing so we had hopes that ere long
Cestius [Gallus] would come up with a large army and quell the revolution.5

On the other hand he may well have acted in an ambiguous manner to avoid
falling victim to one of two camps.6 He rejoined the Pharisee moderates, led by
Ananus, hoping Gallus would arrive and restore order. When Gallus was defeated,
Josephus apparently threw in his lot with the rebels.
The rebel government set about making plans for the inevitable conflict that
was to come with Rome. Needing to establish a command for the various military
zones, generals were appointed from leaders of priestly descent. Surprisingly,
Josephus was given the important command of the two Galilees. We can see
from the account in JW the assembly who appointed him was convened not to
provide leadership for the rebels, but to elect additional generals, implying the
rebels already had generals leading them.7
Josephus gives two different versions about the nature of his command. In JW
we are led to believe his duties were administrative, judicial and military, almost
the same duties as a Roman procurator; clearly implying his mission was hostile
to Rome. In Life he says he was sent to persuade the brigands to lay down their
arms and ensure peace in Galilee. Does this mean Josephus had been entrusted to
bring under his command all the disparate groups in the area? What is apparent
however, is he showed little enthusiasm for the job he had been given and the
implications certainly seem to point to the fact he was playing a waiting game.
It is possible that Josephus’ statement to ‘keep the peace’ can be better
interpreted if consideration is given to the fact there was much conflict between
the cities in the north.8 As well as continuing the usual Jewish/Greek tensions
in the urban centres towns had now taken up arms against each other. If viewed
in this way Josephus’ statement does not necessarily reflect on his part a hostile
attitude towards Rome but a need to unite the factions in a common cause.
Galilee was very different to Jerusalem in its political, social and economic
organization. Galilee was ‘an autonomous and self contained politico/ethical
 JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE 65

unit’9 which had been administered by the Herodian tetrarch, Herod Antipas.
Rome did not appear on the scene except between the years ad 44 and 66, even
then the pro-Roman Agrippa II administered the region around Lake Tiberias.
Economically, Galilee was a wealthy area, and appears to have been run on a
patronal system,10 however it was surrounded by hostile cities. Much of the
land in Galilee was held by foreigners or absentee landlords, the peasants were
crowded onto plots and were subjected to heavy taxes, tithes and debts. The
best land was situated along the coast, in the Jezreel Valley, on the narrow plains
around the Sea of Galilee, and in the south-western hills. To the east of Lake
Tiberias were the lands of Agrippa II who was allied to Rome; Sepphoris the
capital had already fallen to Rome and those who opposed Roman rule had taken
to the hills.11 When Jerusalem declared war on Rome, Galilee was undecided, but
its proximity to the Syrian border meant the area was exposed to Roman attack;
therefore it was vital Jerusalem exerted control over Galilee. So, it is a little baffling
why they entrusted this important area to a pro-Roman priest, barely 30 years
old with no military experience.
Perhaps the Jerusalem government was also playing a waiting game. Their
action would certainly seem to indicate a half-hearted attitude to the war,
perhaps they were hoping, by sending someone like Josephus they could still
find a compromise with Rome, but the revolutionary turmoil into which Galilee
was now plunged meant such a plan had little chance of success. Josephus had to
establish his authority over an area where anarchy was fast gaining a foothold.
The rivalries of the different classes, the individual Zealots and their followers,
different cities with different attitudes, alternatively favourable and unfavourable
towards Agrippa II meant that whether anti- or pro-Roman, even amongst
themselves they could not agree. Josephus’ narrative in Life certainly seems more
subjective indicating he too was being thrown into the prevailing maelstrom.
Josephus faced two further problems; he had to associate with elements likely
to assist in organizing the revolt, despite the fact he was against this course of
action. Likewise, his affiliations in the region, especially to Agrippa II, as well as
his own hereditary links with the royal house, meant Josephus now found himself
in a singularly embarrassing position.
Josephus started his unifying mission by trying to win the local notables
over to his side. He began by appointing a council of 70 over which he presided,
the number of members including himself made a total of 71, the number
prescribed by Jewish Law, so in effect this council became a local Sanhedrin. Each
individual town had a governor and board of seven magistrates. He took great
trouble to win the support of these local men thereby making it easier to control
the region through them. Josephus relates how he organized the territories’
defences, supervising the work himself and laying in supplies for future security.
He surrounded the whole district with a series of defensible positions fortifying
66 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Sepphoris, Tiberias, Tarichaeae and other smaller places. He says he also raised
an army of 100,000 young men who he tried to train in the Roman way, although
how and where he had acquired such knowledge he does not say. This was no
easy task as he found many of the militias were unwilling to cooperate. According
to one scholar the total number of Galileans armed and ready for conflict with
Rome could not have exceeded 10,000 or so. Josephus and John of Gischala, the
other leading figure in Galilee about whom more will be said later, could never
count on more than 5,000 each and most of these men would have been bandits,
men who were willing to fight for pay rather than any revolutionary zeal. Later,
Josephus’ troops would abandon him altogether:

The troops under the command of Josephus, who were camping beside a town called
Garis, not far from Sepphoris, discovering that the war was upon them, and that they
might at any moment be attacked by the Romans, dispersed and fled, not only before
any engagement, but before they had even seen their foes. Josephus was left with a few
companions.12

According to Josephus the instructions he received from Jerusalem were

imprecise, he was told he had to ‘take precautions for Galilee’. It seems logical to
surmise this meant to prepare for war and carry on rallying people to the defence
of their cities, but perhaps Josephus intended to imply his instructions were
imprecise so he could work to his own agenda, yet at the same time have an excuse
if anything went wrong. Whatever the case his subsequent actions certainly give
cause for questioning his motives. There were two specific incidents, one of
which caused a severe rift between him and a prominent Galilean leader, John
of Gischala. On both occasions he acted, supposedly, on religious grounds, i.e.
that it was against the Law to steal, even from one’s enemies, but in fact he acted
in favour of Agrippa who was still allied to Rome.
What little we know of John ben Levi (known as John of Gischala) was written
by Josephus, the man who was to become his sworn enemy. Although it seems
John’s origins may have been humble he did become a man of substance possibly
through entrepreneurship in olive dealing, and certainly he was a prominent
person in his hometown of Gischala in Upper Galilee. It appears the Hellenistic
king Seleucus Nicanor (312–281 bc) had given special privileges to the Jews
who were unwilling to use foreign oil, they were to receive a fixed sum of money
from the gymnasiarchs to pay for their own kind of oil. John, according to
Josephus:

With the avowed object of protecting all the Jews of Syria from the use of oil not supplied
by their own countrymen, [he] sought and obtained permission to deliver it to them
at the frontier. He then brought up that commodity, paying Tyrian coin of the value of
 JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE 67

four attic drachms for four amphora at the same price. As Galilee is a special home of
the olive and the crop had been plentiful, John, enjoyed a monopoly, by sending large
quantities to districts in want of it, amassed an immense sum of money.13

Josephus also tells us John had held a position of some importance in Gischala
before the revolt, and that he became a leader of the local militia not necessarily
from choice. It appears John was not a popular radical but Josephus saw the
advantage of winning his allegiance and incorporating the Gischala militia of
400 men into the army; therefore John was left to organize the fortification of
the town. However, it was not long before the two men clashed over control of
the purloined imperial corn supply in Upper Galilee. According to Josephus
John wished to sell it in order to rebuild the walls of his city. When Josephus
demanded the supply be handed over to him John appealed to the two priests,
who had accompanied Josephus, to give a ruling on the matter and they sided
with John. Aware he had aroused John’s suspicions he allowed him to continue,
in what he believed was base dealing, in oil, even though he had accused John
of profiteering.
A second incident occurred at Dabarittha when the wife of one of Agrippa’s
lieutenants was kidnapped. When the kidnappers asked to be given something
from the plunder as their reward, Josephus refused, saying he was sending it to
Jerusalem to help with the costs of reinforcing the ramparts. Instead he gave it
secretly to those notables who were close friends of Agrippa.
But is the incident with the corn an admission of Josephus’ treason? Purloining
the corn supply would, without doubt, bring a swift reprisal from Rome and
after all Josephus was supposed to unite the area and await, not create, open
confrontation. Given his own beliefs and affiliations it seems his actions
were half-hearted attempts to convince the people of Galilee he was seriously
committed to the cause, without actually inciting open rebellion. But for those
anti-Roman factions his actions, especially after the Dabarittha incident, would
have seemed tantamount to treason.
On the other hand John’s motives were very different. It was not that he craved
wealth for its own sake, instead it seemed he craved the power such wealth gave.
Indeed John’s policy was to favour mass activity to defend the rebellion, and
that included subordination of individual rights, especially rights of property to
the common cause, while at the same time he demonstrated hostility to those
whom he considered treacherous. This is the implication Josephus gives when
he describes incidents that occured at Tarichaeae and Tiberias.
After receiving instructions from Jerusalem Josephus set about razing
the palace of Herod the tetrarch, in Tiberias on the grounds it contained
‘representations of living things’ forbidden by Jewish Law: an action that
mirrored the firing of the Hasmonean palace in Jerusalem, which had gained
68 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

a great deal of popular support for the war party there; was this the reason for
Josephus imitating this action? Tiberias was a major centre founded in the early
first century ad by the client king Herod Agrippa and named after his patron
the emperor Tiberius. The town was Hellenized in character even though the
majority of the inhabitants were Jewish. Old rivalries and social tensions were
brought to light by the revolution, and the city’s mainly royalist ruling class was
finding it difficult to maintain order. They were under threat from both the lower
class and urban poor who were led by Jesus b. Sapphias, and from within their
own ranks by Justus b. Pistus.
The anti-Roman faction were persuaded to join Josephus on his mission but
before they could act were pre-empted by Jesus b. Sapphias and his men who
took matters one step further and set fire to the palace, carrying off the treasures
and purging the town of its Greek and royalist inhabitants. Josephus immediately
went to Tiberias and seized as much booty as he could find which he then
discreetly handed over to the pro-Roman notables with the intention (he says)
of returning them to their rightful owner, Agrippa. This action was viewed with
suspicion, after all Agrippa’s army had been fighting the revolutionaries since
the previous August, and it provoked a furious response in the nearby town of
Tarichaeae.
We get some idea of his intentions with the speech he made at Tarichaeae:

But as I saw citizens of Tarichaeae, that your city above all needed to be put in a state of
defence and that it was in lack of funds to construct ramparts; as moreover, I feared that
the people of Tiberias and of the other cities had their eyes on these spoils, I decided
quietly to keep this money in order to encompass you with a wall. If this does not meet
your approval, I am prepared to produce what was brought to me and leave you to
plunder it; if on the contrary, I have consulted your best interest do not punish your
benefactor.14

He had been denounced as a traitor and the town mob were yelling for blood,
a frenzy being whipped up by both John and Jesus b. Sapphias, the governor
of Tiberias at the time. Josephus’ dramatic entrance into this lion’s den caught
everyone unawares and his eloquent speech, in which he said his intentions had
been to use the spoils to build defences for the city, caused the Taricheans to
express their approval, while the Tiberians heaped abuse on him. The result was
that the various parties turned on each other and left him alone. It was a very
clever way of manipulating events to secure his own self-preservation and all
along this seems to be the sole aim of Josephus, finally culminating in the events
at Jotapata. Josephus of course puts this animosity down to jealously on the part
of his ‘unworthy’ rivals. However, from the two accounts Josephus supplies we
may deduce this was far from the truth.
 JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE 69

John of Gischala emerges from these narratives as Josephus’ bitterest rival,

and in War he is portrayed as a villain from the start. Josephus blames him for
the revolt against him and an abusive but unspecified report of him follows. The
portrait of John is one of a brigand who had mustered 400 men to plunder the
villages of Galilee, yet Josephus’ troops also consisted of bandits. By contrast, in
Life John is said to have opposed the rebellion from the start and his aggressive
actions were merely in defence of himself and his countrymen against attacks
from neighbouring gentile cities:

John son of Levi, observing that some of the citizens were highly elated by the revolt
from Rome, tried to restrain them and urged them to maintain their allegiance . . . a large
force stormed and took Gischala . . . Incensed at this outrage, John armed his followers
and made a determined attack on the aforesaid people and defeated them.

He then rebuilt Gischala on a grander scale than before and fortified it with walls
as a security for the future.15
The fact Josephus in JW sought John out and cooperated with him on his
arrival in Galilee suggests he was a power to be reckoned with. Some scholars
believe John was a person of considerable standing, not the rebel leader Josephus
would have us believe from the accounts in JW.16 Not only was he a wealthy
landowner, but the future emperor Vespasian’s son, Titus, had been prepared to
negotiate with him as commander of Gischala.
The quarrel between them finally turned into open hostility and John in
alliance with Jesus b. Sapphias (who Josephus maintains by pretending to be
hesitant about entering the conflict was also really trying to get power for
himself) and Justus (the man to whom his refutations are addressed in Life),
attempted to raise Tiberias against Josephus. A failed assassination attempt on
their part launched Josephus on a negative publicity campaign to discredit John
and his supporters. They were offered a choice, either defect to Josephus or have
their property burnt down. This telling passage suggests John’s supporters were
not all brigands otherwise they would not have owned property. By now Galilee
was very close to civil war. John’s militia abandoned the town and headed back
to Gischala. Josephus captured the commissioners and they were despatched to
Jerusalem to report the failure of their mission.
John had sent an appeal to Jerusalem for Josephus to be removed from his
post, most probably on the grounds of treason, although Josephus likes to tell us
either jealousy or bribery was the reason. Jerusalem listened, even the respected
Pharisee Simon b. Gamaliel believed Josephus should be made to answer the
accusations and a delegation was sent to remove him from office, by force if
he would not willingly resign. Josephus’ father warned him of the impending
commission, and Josephus immediately took action. He transformed from a
70 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

reluctant moderate to a militant almost overnight. The question is, why did he
choose to remain in Galilee?
He says it was because the people wanted him to stay for fear they would be
left without protection. However, there may be another motivation; rather than
face the ignominy of being recalled he chose to create a diversion, just as he had
done previously at Tarichaeae. He tells us that while he was at Asochis he had a
prophetic dream telling him he would have to fight the Romans before he could
achieve happiness. The next day Josephus mustered an army of 5,000 men and
marched on Ptolemais (Acco) in an act of deliberate provocation to Rome.
Josephus avoided meeting the delegation from Jerusalem and remained in Galilee
until his capture, by Vespasian, at Jotapata.
John, on the other hand, had not perpetrated any act that would have been
considered hostile to Rome. The reason John and Josephus had argued would
appear to have been Josephus’ unwillingness to commit himself to the war, but
argues the idea is not as clear cut as it appears.17 It is apparent John had gained
the support of the moderate members of the Jerusalem government, who were
hardly zealous to go to war with Rome, in his condemnation of Josephus’ actions.
Whatever those actions may have been it warranted serious attention from
Jerusalem, Josephus as our only source for this period, is perhaps trying to create
a different impression of events, and the motives he applies to John, of dishonest
acts and banditry, should largely be ignored. John, unable to remove Josephus,
and witnessing the destruction of Galilee by the Roman forces, finally fled to
Jerusalem, where he joined the moderate party. It soon became apparent that
Ananus and his followers had no real intention of going to war with Rome and
were just waiting for an auspicious moment to affect a suitable surrender. John
transferred his allegiance to the Zealots and became one of the great leaders of
the revolt, remaining in Jerusalem until its destruction in ad 70.
Once again there may be another explanation for Josephus’ attitude towards
John’s role in events. It could be, by inference only, that John was a member of
Eleazar b. Ananias’ faction, while Josephus was more closely allied with the ex-
High Priest, Jesus b. Gamlas.18 Both factions were united under the provisional
government of Ananus. John had hoped for command in Galilee but when it was
given over to the moderate’s representative, Josephus, then every effort was made
to remove him from office. The connection with Eleazar’s faction was Simon b.
Gamaliel, for it was at his behest the deputation was sent to recall Josephus: and
it was Jesus b. Gamalas who sent warning, via Josephus’ father, of the impending
plot to remove him. If this were the case then Josephus’ accusations of jealousy
on the part of his rivals would clearly be justifiable. This hypothesis could also
explain in some part Josephus’ ambivalent behaviour towards John, as well as
his (Josephus’) motivation for remaining in Galilee. Both men were working
to different agendas; Josephus was playing a waiting game, taking measures to
 JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE 71

fortify the cities in case of Roman attack but at the same time doing everything
he could initially, to avoid a confrontation. On the other hand, John, shared the
belief of Eleazar’s faction, that conflict with Rome was inevitable, a question not
of if, but when. Such subtle differences in motives would explain the attitude each
man had towards the other.
However, Josephus’ accounts do not clarify the situation. The differences that
occur in the accounts can be ascribed to literary forms and the purpose served
by the narratives.19 For example, in JW Josephus is presenting his campaign to
his advantage, whereas in Life it is used for self-defence. In fact there are few
discrepancies that cannot be explained away by Josephus’ shift of emphasis: ‘If
the JW shows what Josephus tried to make of things, the Life reveals how many
obstacles stood in his way’.20
Although this theory may explain certain aspects of the narrative style of the
ancient writer, it still leaves us with certain reservations about Josephus’ honesty
when dealing with events in which he played a prominent role. Can we really
believe a man who was noted for his retentive memory, a trait not uncommon
in the Jewish world, should have forgotten enough salient information to render
his accounts so divergent? Even in modern times Orthodox Jewish boys learn
by heart great portions of Talmudic literature and having a good memory is
fundamental to their studies. This kind of memory training has been shown to
increase the ability to recall accurately. The portrayal of John in JW as a brigand
does nothing to enhance Josephus’ reputation, it merely re-enforces the idea he
wished to present the actions of the ruling classes (of which he was one) during
the war in the best possible light to his readers. Understandably, given his beliefs,
Josephus found himself in a unenviable situation but it seems he chose to remain
in Galilee because he believed he had a destiny, which he later convinced himself
was to tell the world about these events and redeem the greatness of his people.
His subsequent actions, when viewed this way, can possibly be understood. At
Jotapata his need was to survive at any cost, because he felt God had given him
a sign in his dreams he had a mission to fulfil, although as with most divine
invitations the raison d’être is not always made clear. Only if he truly believed
this would he have been able to write about it in the way he does, because he
sees himself as an instrument of divine will, rather than trying to justify his own
behaviour.
What is evident from the account in Life, it is that both Galilee and Jerusalem
had one thing in common, they were both disunited. Unlike Jerusalem however,
Galilee had initially been less motivated to rebel against Rome. It seems the
reasons for the Galileans joining the revolt stem directly from internal divisions
and this may give us some clue to the causes of the revolt as a whole.
One plausible reason for the dissension can be found in the socio/economic
breakdown of rural social relations.21 It seems these socio/economic relations,
72 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

in Judaea as a whole, were contractual, that is to say peasants were only bound to
local landlords by contract.22 However, it is possible in the case of Galilee there is
evidence to show that here, at least the hypothesis is tenable.23 The system utilized
meant that wealthy and poor were bound to each other by ties of reciprocal
obligation, i.e. patronage, a system employed in Mediterranean society overall.
There is evidence to suggest this type of patronage meant landlords, such as John
of Gischala, could rely upon the support of their clients in times of war.24
The problems originated with the urbanization of the Galilee area by Antipas,
and the drainage of wealth due to the imposition of direct Roman rule led to
absentee landlords,25 the impoverishment of poorer farmers, and a partial
collapse in the patronal system with the decline in relations between country
landlords and their Roman/Herodian patrons; although Galilee was not as badly
affected as some parts of the country. However, this gave some country landlords
the opportunity to obtain more power, and in this respect we can clearly see from
Josephus’ accounts, the rise of John of Gischala as a wealthy country landlord and
his influence over local peasants. So much so, he was able to retain the loyalty of
his clients long after Galilee had fallen to Rome. Josephus also uses this patronal
system to his own advantage as evidenced in Life.

Wishing, moreover, under the guise of friendliness, to regain the Galilean authorities,
some seventy in all, as hostages for the loyalty of the district, I made them my friends and
companions in travel, took them as assessors to cases which I tried, and obtained their
approbation of the sentences which I pronounced; endeavouring not to fail in justice
through precipitate action and in these matters to keep clear of all bribery.26

A consequence of this partial breakdown of the patronal system was unem-

ployment, landlessness and the subsequent development of large bands of
brigands. Unemployment could also have been a significant factor in bringing
about the revolt in Jerusalem, when the completion of the Temple threw a large
number of men out of work in ad 64. Presumably the brigands that flocked
into Jerusalem helped swell the ranks of the disaffected there and it seems clear
whatever the machinations of the ruling classes, they still needed popular support.
Jerusalem was an archetypal Oriental city divided between the ruling classes and
the populace, and crowd protestations supposedly against the procurators could
well have been directed against the ruling class.27 The protestations usually
occurred at festivals, especially Passover when the ranks of the urban populace
were swelled by pilgrims and peasants from the countryside.28 It could also be
considered that the power of the disaffected mob may have contributed towards
the actions of the rebel faction from the upper classes. Evidently, the social and
economic changes in first-century ad Palestine produced conditions in part
favourable to revolt.
 JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE 73

Another salient feature of the narrative in Life is its singular lack of substantial
references to Rome. On only two occasions does Josephus make any pertinent
statements about what the Roman army was doing.29 It is almost as though Rome
was a hungry lion waiting to pick out the weakest from the herd, they were aware
of its presence but were too busy establishing their own internal hierarchy to
pay it serious attention. The evidence from the accounts in JW and Life help to
clarify the nature of disunity amongst the Jewish people and Josephus, perhaps
unwittingly, helps by his own attitudes to clarify the differences between the
classes, which was a pivotal factor for the revolt beginning.
This page intentionally left blank
 8

The Siege of Jotapata

Vespasian was impatient to make an end of Jotapata. (JW 3:141)

In May ad 67 Vespasian’s army invaded Galilee. The size of the army, nearly 6,000
men, naturally provoked fear in the Jewish forces that were concentrated near
Sepphoris, and who had no desire to encounter them in a conventional battle.
The city of Sepphoris had already sent word to Vespasian asking for protection
and he had furnished them with 1,000 cavalry and 6,000 infantry under the
command of the tribune Placidus. The divisions made frequent assaults on
the surrounding country causing a great deal of trouble to Josephus, now the
commander of the Jewish army, and his men, so by way of retaliation Josephus
attempted an assault on Sepphoris, but to no avail.
The Jewish army now began to disintegrate as men deserted and sought refuge
in the fortified strongholds. Josephus had no other recourse than to fall back with
his remaining forces to Tiberias, where his arrival filled the native Tiberians with
alarm, as they realized he would not have fled there unless all hope of victory over
Rome had been abandoned. Indeed Josephus was contemplating submission;
he decided to write to Jerusalem explaining the serious nature of the threat he
now faced.

Neither exaggerating the strength of the enemy, which might subsequently lead to his
being taunted with cowardice, nor underrating it, for fear of encouraging them to hold
out when possibly inclined to repent.1

He requested them to either send more troops or to command him to negotiate

with the Romans. While awaiting a reply, news arrived about the fate of the village
of Gabara, which lay approximately 12 miles (19 km) inland from Ptolemais.
The village had been completely wiped out by the Roman forces and all the
inhabitants massacred; the nearby smaller settlements had also been attacked and
destroyed and their people captured and taken into slavery. Vespasian’s purpose
was a deliberate policy to force the insurgents into battle or surrender. Despite the
initial shock of this incident to the Jewish forces they still did not capitulate.
The key to the defence of Galilee lay in the small, fortified town of Jotapata,
located on the north-western edge of Lower Galilee. It was a natural hill-top
76 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

fortress protected on all sides and on the north by deep ravines. To the north
was a round-topped hill that had been incorporated into the defences because it
commanded the site. Beyond the hill and the northern defensive wall, the ground
dipped away for about three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) before rising again,
providing a natural battleground for taking possession of the town.
Vespasian’s tribune, Placidus had earlier attempted to take Jotapata and so
make a name for himself in the process, and he expected to encounter little
difficulty. However, forewarned of his approach the people of the town ambushed
his force and managed to rout them, killing seven Romans in the process, while
the Jewish losses only amounted to three men. Vespasian now decided Jotapata
was the key to attaining submission of Galilee and sent engineers ahead to level
the ground and widen the track. Josephus tells us that he had made Jotapata
the most heavily fortified and garrisoned of all the strongholds and he left
Tiberias and hastily made his way to Jotapata to join the remains of his troops
to now take command. Placidus was sent with cavalry to set up a cordon on the
hills around the town to prevent anyone escaping. The following day the main
force arrived and set up camp to the north; a solid line of infantry and cavalry
was dispersed round the town to establish a secure blockade, which cut off the
defenders of Jotapata from the outside world. The fate of those who were inside
was sealed, either they would have to capitulate or face a siege, which literally
meant everyone inside the town, young and old, women and children would
die or be enslaved. According to the historian Polybius the purpose of Roman
massacre and enslavement in captured cities was to inspire terror and therefore
affect an early surrender.2
The fighting began almost immediately. Vespasian used the fact he had a large
army to intimidate the defenders of Jotapata who consisted mostly of peasants
wielding nothing more than home-made weapons. This kind of physiological
war-game would be advantageous if it succeeded because not only would it save
the expense of a protracted siege but it would also give the Romans the advantage
for their planned assault of the city of Jerusalem.
For five days Vespasian’s army besieged the inhabitants of Jotapata with
missiles and massed assaults by the heavy infantry, hoping this would weaken
enemy morale. Josephus responded by sending out groups on sorties to surprise
the Romans, who were ill-prepared for such tactics, and engage them in front of
the walls. He reports only 17 Jews and 13 Romans were killed on the first day.
However, these tactics resulted in a stalemate; the Romans were unable to make
any headway as they encountered heavy resistance from the Jews, and for their part
the Jews could not risk open confrontation, being ill-equipped both in armour
and weapons as well as lacking the necessary discipline of the Roman army.
Vespasian called off his attack and assembled a council of war. It was clear that
Jotapata’s defences were too strong for a frontal assault and it became obvious it
 T H E S I E G E O F J O TA PATA 77

would require siege warfare if the fortress were to be conquered. A platform of

earth, timber and stone was constructed leading from the Roman lines up to the
wall of the town. This was so that the dip could be filled and the ground levelled to
enable the siege engines to be manoeuvred to the walls. Vespasian’s army was put
to work cutting down trees to make the framework for the platform, collecting
stones to form revetments between the timbers, digging out the earth to provide
the infill. This was no easy task and required a huge labour force. Vespasian had
approximately 600,000 men and they needed to be fed. The necessary supplies
have been estimated to have amounted to 900,000 gallons of water a day, and 300
tons of grain and fodder; this campaign was a costly exercise.
The Jews retaliated and mounted a defence to disrupt the siege works by
shooting missiles and making several sorties to tear down the hurdles (the
large row of protective screens that had been erected specifically to prevent
such attacks), to attack the men working behind them, as well as breaking up
sections of the platform and setting fire to the timber supports at night after the
Romans had stopped work. In order to counter this threat Vespasian linked the
hurdles together to make a continuous line along his front; the Jewish sorties
now became too dangerous to risk and they were forced to remain behind
the walls.
Finally, the siege works progressed unhindered and now posed a serious
threat to the defenders of Jotapata. The platform would reach the height of
the north wall and would enable the Roman assault forces to storm over the
gangplanks on the narrow parapet opposite. Josephus ordered stonemasons to
begin heightening the existing wall, and protected them by erecting screens of
ox hide. They had to work night and day in relays in order to complete the task
quickly, for time was of the essence. The wall was now almost 10 metres (33 ft)
high with a new parapet on top, and towers spaced at intervals to allow them to
fire at the attackers, who were now below them. Now it was Roman morale that
was at low ebb as the Jews’ confidence rose, they began once again to take the
defensive with further sorties into enemy lines.
Vespasian was forced to change tactics yet again, and he abandoned the
siege operations and began a passive blockade to weaken the Jews by starvation
and thirst. Indeed water was a problem in the town although they were fairly
well supplied with other provisions. There was no natural spring either on the
southern ridge or the northern hill, so any water they had was kept held in rock
cut cisterns, which filled with rainwater. However, May and June were months
when hardly any rain fell, and the town was now swollen with refugees as well as
the militia, so water soon began to be in short supply. The Jews had to go to the
cisterns at the top of the northern hill to collect their daily ration, and often came
under fire from the Romans. Indeed if the Romans had been able to continue
their blockade the siege would have ended before too long.
78 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

However, Josephus formulated a plan and foiled the Romans. First he proposed
to lead an outbreak from the town in order to obtain help from the rest of Galilee,
the townspeople would not condone this possibly because they feared Josephus
might abandon them. So, Josephus devised another ruse whereby the Romans
would be fooled into thinking the town had enough water to withstand the siege.
He arranged for several of his men to wash their garments and hang them on
the walls to dry. When Vespasian saw this he naturally believed they had enough
water, and the siege would be a protracted one, as he had no idea exactly how
much water the cisterns contained, he decided to abandon the siege and resume
his offensive strategy. The Jews also resumed their offensive and mounted fresh
sorties against the Roman camp situated on the opposite rise.
Gradually the Roman platforms grew larger and the gap between the
walls shortened. A battering ram was positioned to begin the assault on the
wall, protected by archers and artillery who fired continuously at the enemy
battlements above. The Jews retaliated with a heavy volley of missiles but
Josephus saw that repeated blows on the same spot on the wall was rendering it
on the verge of collapse. He devised another ingenious plan to paralyse the attack.
He ordered sacks filled with rags to be let down by ropes to the place where the
ram was battering, with the object of deflecting the ram and deadening the force
by cushioning the blows. This seriously hampered the Romans for wherever they
placed the ram the Jews followed and lowered the sacks, thereby protecting the
wall from serious impact.
The Romans countered this by using long poles with scythes attached to the
end with which they cut the cords supporting the sacks. As a last resort Josephus
and his men had to consider firing the Roman defences. They gathered all the
dry wood they could find and rushed out from three quarters of town and set
fire to the engines, wicker shelters and props of the Roman earthworks. They
were successful and the fire raged for an hour and consumed most of the Roman
works. Men were also deployed on the battlements to rain missiles down on the
Romans, Josephus tells us:

On one occasion one Jew who made his mark deserves record and remembrance; his
name was Eleazar, son of Sameas, a native of Saba in Galilee. Lifting an enormous stone,
he hurled it from the wall at the ram with such force that he broke off its head; then
leaping from the ramparts Eleazar picked up the ram head and bore it with perfect
composure to the foot of the ramparts. Now become a target for all his foes, and was
receiving their hits in his defenceless body, he was pierced by five arrows. But without
thought for these he scaled the wall and there stood conspicuous to all the admirers of
his bravery; then writhing under his wounds he fell headlong with the ram’s head in his
hands.3
 T H E S I E G E O F J O TA PATA 79

Josephus singles out two other men for bravery, the brothers Netiras and Phillip
who dashed out along the lines of the X legion and charged the Romans, breaking
their ranks and putting to flight all those they encountered.
Furthermore Josephus tells us that:

Towards evening the Romans re-erected the ram and brought it up to the spot where the
wall had been weakened by its previous blows. At this moment one of the defenders of
the ramparts hit Vespasian with an arrow in the sole of the foot.4

The wound was superficial but it caused great consternation in the Roman
camp, especially to Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was first on the scene. Vespasian
managed to rally himself and show them he was safe, which made them even
more determined to fight the Jews more fiercely, and shouting encouragement
to one another they rushed the ramparts.
The Jews despite being bombarded with a hail of missiles still held out on the
battlements and continued to assault the Romans who were propelling the ram
under cover of their wicker shelters. However the light from the fires they had
set now assisted the Romans for it outlined the Jews against the darkness so the
Romans could easily pick them off. The missiles continued to rain down upon
the defenders until by morning the wall finally gave way and collapsed. Josephus
gives us a glimpse of the power of these siege engines:

[They] came with such force as to strike down whole files and whizzing stones hurled by
the engines carried away the battlements and broke off the angles of the towers . . . Some
incidents of the night will give an idea of the power of this engine. One of the men
standing on the wall had his head carried away by a single stone, and his skull was shot,
as from a sling, to a distance of three furlongs [600 m].5

It has been suggested that Josephus may be exaggerating here, as the engine
he describes is thought to be the onager, another form of stone projector not
invented until later. The scene must have been a horrendous one, and Josephus
tells us the whole of the surrounding area in the front of the fighting line ran
with blood, and piles of corpses formed a path to the summit wall.
The following morning Vespasian launched his final assault. The breach in
the wall was wide enough to allow his troops to force their way into the town.
Vespasian deployed three units, made up from the cavalry, to clear an entrance,
equipped with armour and levelled lances, while the main infantry supported
them from behind. On either side of the main column the remainder of the
army was drawn up, while the rest of the cavalry formed a cordon to prevent
breakouts from the town, and lines of archers, slingers and artillery were
deployed to bombard the town. Interspersed with these were heavy infantry
80 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

units with ladders who would attempt to move under the cover of fire towards
the undamaged parts of the wall to scale it, thereby drawing defenders away from
the area of the breach.
Josephus left the manning of the intact portions of the wall to the fatigued or
older men, placing the strongest at the area of the breach. He instructed his men
to stop their ears when the Roman war cry came so not to be frightened by it; to
crouch down and cover their bodies when the hail of missiles came and to fall
back for a while, but as soon as the gangways were laid to spring onto them and
confront the enemy. Josephus also:

fearing that the wailing of the women might unman the combatants had them shut up
in their houses, ordering them with threats to hold their peace.6

Before long the archers and slingers began their assault, and Josephus tells us
there were so many missiles fired the sky darkened with them. As the defenders
cowed beneath the barrage of rock and stone, the Roman column advanced down
the platform towards the breach, the Jewish defenders sprang up and charged.
The legionnaires formed a solid line across the platform, side-by-side, shield-by-
shield in the testudo formation. The testudo or tortoise formation consisted of the
men at the sides with their shields held vertically and locked together forming
an unbroken wall, the men in the middle with shields held overhead formed a
protective roof against projectiles hurled from above. They moved slowly in a
shuffling methodical advance. Close-quarter fighting now ensued but the Jews
had limited reserves whereas the Roman column was formed in great depth along
the platform. The Jews were soon herded back and the Romans were poised to
take the breach.
As the Romans approached the walls they were suddenly bombarded with
streams of boiling oil, which penetrated the roof of the testudo on to the men
beneath, penetrating their armour and scalding them. The centurions at the
back quickly reformed into another testudo believing the oil supply would not
last. They were correct but the Jews then hit the second testudo with a cold stew
of fenugreek which covered the planks in a gluey slime, causing the soldiers
to lose their footing and be trampled by the oncoming soldiers, either that
or be impaled by missiles from the Jews situated above. There were no more
advances by the Romans as fear spread through the assault column; Vespasian
called off the attack, and Josephus and his men held Jotapata for another
month.
The success of the Jews at Jotapata and the fact the bulk of Vespasian’s army
was tied up with the siege had the effect of spurring other fortified towns in
Galilee to revolt. When the town of Japha revolted Vespasian despatched the
commander of the X legion with a force of 2,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry to
 T H E S I E G E O F J O TA PATA 81

quell it. The town was captured and most of the defenders slain, leaving only a
few women and children who were taken into slavery.
At Jotapata the Romans began to work again on the platforms with the
intention of raising them above the height of the walls, as well as constructing
three timber-framed towers to protect the workers on the platforms and
command the Jewish wall. The Roman archers could shoot down on to the Jewish
battlements from above, which meant occupation of the battlements by the Jews
became impossible. The only way the Jews could disrupt the work was by making
frequent sorties, which were difficult owing to the towers’ dominating position,
and costly in terms of Jewish lives.
A deserter from the town offered Vespasian a glimpse into the defenders’
position, and informed him that usually just before daybreak the exhausted men
guarding the wall would fall asleep. Vespasian ordered his son Titus to take a small
contingent of men and to raid the walls. On 1 July Titus and his men managed to
stealthily climb to the parapet and despatched the sleeping guards. The Romans
opened the gates and the soldiers waiting in reserve then surged forwards, they
quickly secured the wall and overran the northern hill. The defenders had been
caught off guard and panic swept through the town. Those defenders on the far
side of the ridge could see no way of getting back to the town and committed
suicide.

They took refuge in one of the northern towers, where for some time they held their
own; but, being surrounded by large numbers of the enemy, they at length surrendered
and cheerfully extended their throats to their assailants.7

As the Romans advanced through the town, people fled in terror, some found
refuge in the underground cisterns. The Romans killed all the men, and also
some women and children, others were sold into slavery, finally Vespasian
ordered the town to be demolished. In 1977 Israeli archaeologists discovered a
mass grave here that included the remains of many juveniles (see Chapter 15 for
fuller details).
Josephus had managed to hide in a deep pit, connected to a large cave that
was not visible from above. A supply of provisions to last several days, and 40
other notables accompanied Josephus in his hideout. At night Josephus tells us he
would emerge from hiding to try to find an escape route but was not successful.
On day three the hiding place was eventually discovered by the Romans;
Vespasian offered Josephus his life if he surrendered, and it appears that Josephus
was willing to accept his offer.
Josephus relates the subsequent events in the cave and he tells how his
companions preferred to commit suicide rather than fall into Roman hands. After
haranguing his companions with a long rhetorical speech on the sinfulness of
82 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

such an action (which failed to move them), he agreed to their suicide pact. He
proposed the drawing of lots to decide the order of mutual killing. So, they drew
lots; one-by-one they carried out the killing of their comrades until only Josephus
and one other person were left. Josephus recounts with great pride his ingenious
duping of his countrymen and makes it clear he ‘had counted the numbers by
cunning and thereby misled them all’. If Josephus had arranged the selection using
a circular count then it has been proven that a clever manipulator could contrive
the order in which to place themselves within the circle in order to survive.
Josephus and his companion gave themselves up and Josephus (for he says
nothing more about his companion) was led away from the cave and escorted
through a crowd of soldiers to Vespasian, Titus and other officers who were
assembled to receive him. Josephus was spared death and was at first imprisoned
ready to be despatched to Rome.

What happened next according to Josephus may seem a little incredulous to

the modern reader. According to him when he was brought before Vespasian he
addressed him with the words:

You imagine Vespasian that in the person of Josephus you have taken a mere captive; but
I come to you as a messenger of greater destinies. Had I not been sent on this errand by
God, I knew the law of the Jews and how it becomes a general to die. To Nero do you send
me? Why then? Think you that [Nero and] those who before your accession succeeded
him will continue? You will be Caesar, Vespasian, you will be emperor, you and your son
here. Bind me then yet more securely in chains and keep me for yourself; for you Caesar,
are master not of me only, but of land and sea and the whole human race. For myself I
ask to be punished by stricter custody, if I have dared to trifle with the words of God.8

Incidentally, the Roman historian Suetonius also reports the general prophecy
of success made to Vespasian by a priest on Mount Carmel.9
At first Vespasian thought this was a ruse by Josephus to save his own life, but
later changed his mind when he was informed of Josephus’ prediction Jotapata
would fall in 47 days, which had come true. Josephus, although still a prisoner
was treated well by the future emperor and was to remain with him and his son
Titus, with whom he developed a friendship for the remainder of the war.
There is an ambivalent attitude of Josephus regarding the suicide pact made by
his comrades, and says that his narrative contains three quite distinct reasons for
his rejection of this course of action.10 One is moral, one practical and one relies
on supernatural sanction. His rejection of the suicide pact on moral grounds is
in stark contrast to the oration ascribed to Eleazar at Masada (see Chapter 14),
where Josephus invokes standard Jewish practice: ‘With us it is ordained that
suicides should remain unburied until after sunset’.
 T H E S I E G E O F J O TA PATA 83

It is strange that the episode in the cave does not appear in the same account
of Jotapata in Life, but then in JW he was trying to exonerate himself from
accusations of treachery. We therefore have to understand that this section of
his narrative was written for the moderate Jews, and clearly it is with the aim of
reinstating himself that he offers a series of explanations to those who would not
be considered fanatics; the Zealots would never have agreed.
Jotapata had fallen at the beginning of July, which meant that there were still
several months left in the campaigning season, enough time to wipe out any
remaining resistance in Galilee. However, the demoralization amongst the Jewish
forces caused by the fall of Jotapata had resulted in the virtual collapse of the
resistance in Lower Galilee; only a few pockets remained, notably in Gischala in
Upper Galilee in the north, and Tarichaeae and Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee,
Mount Tabor inland and Gamala in the Golan Heights.
While the battle for Jotapata was raging Vespasian despatched the commander
of the X legion, Trajan to Japha with 1,000 cavalry and 2,000 men. The town of
Japha was situated in the vicinity of Jotapata, and encouraged by the uprising
there, had also revolted. The town commandeered a strong geographical situation
as well as being protected by a double ring of walls.
As Trajan approached, the inhabitants went out to meet him, as he saw,
prepared for action, so he charged them, routed them and set off in pursuit. They
burst into the first enclosure with the Romans in hot pursuit, but when they
made their way to the second wall their fellow citizens shut them out fearing the
Romans would also penetrate this area.

Vainly did the swarming crowd batter the gates and implored the sentinels by name to
let them in; while their supplications were on their lips they were butchered.11

According to Josephus the number of Jews slain was 12,000. Trajan sent word to
Vespasian requesting him to send Titus to complete the victory. Titus was sent
with reinforcements of 500 cavalry and 1,000 infantry. Titus commanded the
right wing and soon his troops scaled the ramparts, and a desperate struggle
ensued within walls where the defenders had rallied to meet the oncoming forces.
The more able-bodied defenders clashed with the troops in the narrow alleyways
while women pelted the troops from the roofs. The struggle lasted for six hours
until the combatants were exterminated and the remainder of the population
massacred.
The Samaritans did not escape either. The whole of Samaria was under
garrison but the Samaritans had assembled on their sacred mountain, Gerizim
and refused to move from the spot; their determined attitude appeared to be
indicative of rebellion. Vespasian decided to anticipate their action so he sent
Cerealis commander of the V legion with a force of 600 cavalry and 3,000
84 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

infantry. The commander then blockaded them on the summit, and due to thirst
because of lack of water supplies and excessive heat, slowly the Samaritans began
to descend the mountain whereupon the entire group were massacred.
Vespasian had marched back to Ptolemais to rest his troops before continuing
operations in Galilee and established permanent bases for them in the non-
Jewish cities of Caesarea and Scythopolis. The first and most important task was
to restore sea communications. The rebels had reoccupied Joppa after Gallus’
withdrawal and were using it as a base for piracy which not only endangered
Vespasian’s links with Greece and Italy but also the corn supply destined for
Rome. A small force was sent to capture the port and establish a garrison, which
was achieved with ease.
Caesarea was now the centre of operations as it was well placed for access to the
north-east to Galilee and the Golan or south-east to Judaea and Jerusalem. The
harbour meant that it could be well supplied and of course being a Hellenistic city
was reasonably loyal to Rome. From here, Vespasian marched back across Galilee
with a portion of his army to Caesarea Philippi in the Golan on the northern
edge of Agrippa’s territories.
King Agrippa solicited Vespasian’s aid in bringing the client kingdoms back
under his control, Tiberias and Tarichaeae were in rebel hands but there was
strong pro-Roman feeling in Tiberias, where earlier in the year Josephus had
intervened between the radical revolutionaries led by Jesus b. Sapphias and the
Herodian supporters who wanted to make peace with the Roman forces. Titus
was sent back to Caesarea to bring the remaining troops to Scythopolis, where
Vespasian joined him and then from there they marched towards Tiberias
establishing their camp a few miles outside the city.
Vespasian sent an officer to seek the town’s surrender, this was responded to
by Jesus b. Sapphias who led his forces out of Tiberias to attack the Romans. The
royalists and other elites quickly defected to the Romans and the revolutionaries,
losing what support they needed to defend the town, dispersed towards
Tarichaeae a few miles north. The following day Tiberias opened the gates of the
town and gladly welcomed the Roman forces. The battle for the Galilee had been
won, the battle for Jerusalem was about to begin.
 9

Final Conflict in Galilee

Galilee was thus now wholly subdued after affording a strenuous

training for the impending Jerusalem campaign. (JW 4:120)

The rebels in Tarichaeae grew stronger than ever as fresh militiamen arrived to
make a stand against Rome. Josephus had fortified the town with a circuit of walls
and on the waterfront the rebels had assembled a flotilla of boats, which could be
used to effect an escape should their land operations fail. Vespasian and his army
were camped just south of the town where they erected stout defences.

While the Romans were entrenching their camp, Jesus and his companions, undeterred
by the strength and orderly discipline of the enemy, made a sally, and at the first onset
dispersed the workmen and pulled down a portion of the structure.
However when they saw the legionaries mustering, they hastily fell back upon their
own party, before sustaining any loss; the Romans pursued and drove them to their ships.
Putting out into the lake just far enough to leave the Romans within bowshot, they then
cast anchor and, closing up their vessels one against another like an army in line of battle,
they kept up as it were a sea fight with their enemy on shore.1

Vespasian countered this attack by stationing 2,000 archers, under the command
of Antonius Silo, on a hill close by the town. The Jews had also amassed a large
force on the plain, so a cavalry unit comprising 600 men was sent to deal with
them, under the command of Titus. However, he found the number of Jews
facing him prodigious and so sent word back to Vespasian requesting more
men. Trajan, one of Vespasian’s officers, joined him with a further 400 cavalry.
Titus’ force charged the Jews who did not flee immediately, but against such odds
these lightly armed men stood little chance. Many did make it back to the town
but Titus pressed home his advantage and re-formed his cavalry leading them
through the edge of the lake so to be able to pass round the end of the wall. The
Romans finally broke into the town and proceeded with the onslaught. Jesus and
some of his followers managed to escape and fled across country, the rest of the
townspeople were either slain or taken into slavery.
Vespasian ordered a cordon to be placed around the town to prevent any
more rebels from escaping; he also had rafts constructed so that his troops
86 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

could pursue those who had tried to escape by boat. At the western edge of
the Sea of Galilee a naval battle ensued. Josephus describes the boats as ‘small
built for piracy and weak in comparison with the Roman rafts’, they were
presumably fishing boats commandeered by Jesus. The Roman archers quickly
mowed down the Jews who lacked armour, in contrast to the Romans who were
protected from Jewish missiles. The rafts soon overwhelmed the small boats
and the inmates were either hacked down by javelins or thrown into the water,
where they met a similar fate: the waiting soldiers killed those who managed
to struggle ashore. The devastation was complete and Josephus tells us ‘the
beaches were thick with wrecks and swollen bodies, which hot and steaming in
the sun made the air foul’.2
Vespasian separated the townspeople into the citizens, Agrippa’s subjects,
who had been caught up in the events, and the non-resident insurgents. The
city and its citizens were handed back to Agrippa, while the others were taken to
Tiberias, where Vespasian divided them into various categories. Six thousand of
the strongest young men were sent to work as slaves on the Corinth canal, the
remaining were sold to slave dealers, those who were either too old to work or had
some other disability, perhaps numbering as many as 1,000 in total, were killed.
Only three of Josephus’ strongholds still held out against Rome, all of
them were located in northern Palestine; Gischala, Gamala and Mount Tabor.
Vespasian now headed towards Gamala, a fortress in the south-west corner of
Agrippa’s territory of Gaulanitis, which had been kept forcibly loyal to the king
by a garrison of his troops. The town was perched on a spur of the Golan Heights
described by Josephus as being: ‘hung in the air and on the point of tumbling on
top of itself from its very steepness’.3
This garrisoning of Gamala had prevented the rest of Gaulanitis, which
contained a large Jewish population, from joining the national cause. Agrippa
had unwisely withdrawn his garrison forces and was forced to conduct a siege
lasting seven months in order to put the fortress out of action as an effective rebel
base. The defenders, which included refugees mainly from Galilee including both
rebels and villagers from the vicinity, had held out admirably, which gives some
indication of the town’s strength.
However Vespasian was determined that Gamala should be taken and he
deployed three legions, the XV on the north side, the V in the centre and the X
to the south. All three legions were ordered to construct siege platforms to create
a level approach. As usual the defenders attempted to disrupt the operations but
were out-shot by the Roman artillery. King Agrippa approached the ramparts
and tried to parley with the Jews and get them to capitulate. The reply he received
was a slingshot which hit him just above his right elbow.
Before long the siege platforms were completed and battering rams were
brought in which quickly made breaches in the wall. The legionaries broke
 FINAL CONFLICT IN GALILEE 87

into the town and the defenders made their way towards the ridge at the top,
which had the desired effect of drawing the soldiers deep into the narrow streets
involving them in house-to-house fighting, one of the most difficult of all types
of combat because the enemy can be over, behind, or on either side. Given this
situation there was no opportunity to deploy the natural disciplined mass of the
Roman fighting machine effectively. The legions were broken into smaller groups
therefore unable to rely on support; after a sudden attack from above the forward
ranks of the legions panicked and turned to flee, only to find their way blocked
by their comrades coming through the narrow alleyways behind them. In the
panic to escape the troops climbed onto the roofs on either side; the weight of
the men cause the roofs to collapse as well as the floors beneath.
The Jews then pressed home their advantage by raining down missiles on to
the stampeding troops below. They also began to slaughter those men who were
trapped in the wreckage of the collapsed buildings. The emperor Vespasian was
among the mass of soldiers having joined in on the attack, he found himself
isolated near the ridge with a small group of soldiers. Luckily they did not waiver;
they formed a shield wall to protect themselves from the missiles hurled by the
Jews in front of them, and slowly made a withdrawal. Most of the remaining
legionaries were able to make their way to the breaches in the wall and back to
Roman lines.
This defeat was indeed an inglorious one for the Romans and left Vespasian’s
troops demoralized. Vespasian set them to work to raise the platforms higher, and
tried to encourage them by making a speech, in which he told them:

‘Fortune flits back again to one side. You have slain myriads of Jews, but yourselves have
paid but a trifling contribution to the deity.’4

His words seemed to animate his troops.

The inhabitants of Gamala were naturally delighted with their success over
the Romans. However their elation slowly began to turn to despondency as they
realized any chance they had of escaping was virtually nil and they were running
out of supplies. They faced a blockade, and soon hunger and tiredness would also
become their enemy. Nevertheless they continued to take what precautions they
could, the bravest amongst them manned the breaches; the rest manned what
remained of the wall. However, when the Romans began strengthening their
earthworks to attempt a fresh assault the people of the town began to flee down
the ravines or through underground passages.
While the people of Gamala were suffering Vespasian undertook a minor
diversion by dispelling the occupants of Mount Tabor. Mount Tabor lay midway
between the Great Plain and Scythopolis. The citadel was surrounded by a wall,
erected by Josephus, and adequately supplied with provisions including water.
88 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Vespasian despatched his general Placidus with 600 cavalry. Finding the ascent of
the mountain impracticable Placidus made peaceful overtures to the crowd who
had fled there, and offered terms. The crowd responded favourably and began to
descend, however, their real agenda was to attack the Romans. Placidus feigned
flight and in doing so led the Jews out on to the Plain; then suddenly he wheeled
his cavalry round and routed them. The majority of the Jews were slain, the
remainder were captured, and the masses still remaining on the mountain were
given promises of protection, so they surrendered Mount Tabor to Placidus.
In Gamala some inhabitants were making their escape, others were dying
of famine while the bravest were still attempting to withhold the siege. On 9
November, about a month into the siege, three soldiers of the XV legion crept
up to the base of the projecting tower of the town and began to undermine it.
As it was still dark the sentries positioned above did not see them so they could
carry out their work unhindered. The soldiers succeeded in rolling away the five
chief foundation stones then leapt out of the way; the tower came toppling down.
The guards at the other posts fled, and the Romans cut down many who tried to
escape. The people in the town were in a state of panic believing the Romans had
burst in, however the Romans did not effect an entry until the following day.
Vespasian’s son Titus who had not been present at the initial attack now
returned and he led 200 dismounted cavalry and some infantry and entered the
town quietly. The guards were surprised and ran through the town where general
panic ensued: Josephus describes the scene vividly

Some snatching up their children and dragging their wives after them, fled with their
wailing and weeping families up to the citadel; those who faced Titus were incessantly
dropping; while any who were debarred from escape to the heights fell in their
bewilderment into the hands of the Roman sentries. On all sides was heard the never
ending moan of the dying, and the whole city was deluged with blood pouring down
the slopes.5

Vespasian led the main force through the eastern wall, the mass of Jewish fighters
along with their families had gathered on the steep rocky crag that overlooked
the town. As the Romans began to haul themselves up the slope the Jews rained
down missiles upon them. However, a fierce wind began to blow, it was so strong
it almost blew some of the defenders off the crag, and sent their missiles wide of
their targets. The Romans pressed on, and it became clear to the Jewish defenders
there was little hope, the Romans had them encircled on the whole of the lower
slope, advancing towards the summit and slaughtering everyone in their path.
Some brave defenders continued to fight, but resistance became futile as the
Romans pressed home their advance.
 FINAL CONFLICT IN GALILEE 89

What happened next is the stuff of legends and has caused scholars to refer to
the site as the Masada of the Golan.6 Some scholars were under the impression
that a mass suicide had occurred here as it had done at the desert fortress
of Masada much later in ad 73, when a band of Zealots made one last stand
against the might of Rome (see Chapter 14). According to Josephus, the people
on the crag knowing defeat was inevitable plunged over the precipice to their
deaths. According to him 4,000 had been slain by the Romans but 5,000 actually
committed suicide; men, women and their children.
In a recent publication a more pragmatic approach has been taken to this
story.7 The site of Gamala has been under archaeological investigation since the
1990s and it appears the only place along the crest of the ridge where there is a
vertical cliff high enough for someone falling off it to die with any certainty is at
the summit, which today can only accommodate a few hundred people at most.
In antiquity it may have been larger but not by very much:

even if we accept 500 people standing on the ridge it would be physically impossible for
all but a few to reach the summit and jump headlong to their deaths. The rest would
not have made it. The remainder of the ridge on the north slopes down, indeed, to the
gorge below.8

It has also been suggested that while the mass suicide at Masada most probably
did occur because there the people had time to listen to the impassioned speech of
their leader Eleazar ben Yair, no such time would have been afforded to the people
of Gamala. The truth must be that the remaining defenders and townspeople
were trying to flee down the steep northern slope in panic, with the inevitable
result that many were trampled underfoot and died. Some of the more agile may
actually have reached the gorge and safety. However, according to Josephus only
two women survived, the nieces of Phillip son of Jacimus, a distinguished man
who had been commander-in-chief to Herod Agrippa.
In the 14 seasons of excavation at Gamala no human skeleton was ever
uncovered. This is due no doubt to the fact of the supreme importance of Jewish
religious command for burial of the dead. The Romans would no doubt have
allowed burials to take place. The dead were probably buried in a mass grave
somewhere in or near the city; the recent discovery of a mass burial cistern at
Yodefat [Jotapata] confirms this hypothesis, so it will be a matter of chance if
burials are discovered at Gamala.

The defeat of Galilee was almost complete, only Gischala remained. The legions
were now despatched to their winter quarters at Caesarea and Scythopolis; so
Vespasian sent Titus with 1,000 cavalry on a special mission to destroy the last
rebel outpost in the region. Josephus tells us that the inhabitants of Gischala
90 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

were inclined to be peaceful consisting of mainly agricultural labourers, but he

says they had been affected by numerous gangs of bandits and incited to rebel
by John of Gischala.
John’s position appeared hopeless, for Gischala was now isolated and could
not call upon any assistance. The town’s defences were weak and could be taken
easily, instead Titus chose to blockade the town because winter was approaching,
they would soon have starved to death.

Titus, on riding up to Gischala saw that the town might easily be carried by assault. But
he knew that were it taken by storm a general massacre of the population by his troops
would ensue; he was already satiated by slaughter and pitied the masses . . . he therefore
preferred to induce the town to capitulate.9

When Titus arrived he offered terms and then withdrew allowing the Jews on
religious grounds to give their response after the Sabbath. John’s plan was to
evacuate the town and march south to aid the defence of Jerusalem, Vespasian’s
final objective, and for which he was busily training his troops in their winter
camps. John outwitted Titus by using the excuse of the Sabbath to buy him time
to effect an escape. Titus’ mistake was to not put a cordon round the town to
prevent such an event.
During the night John and his militia slipped out of the town and set off for
Jerusalem, the non-combatants, mainly women and children, followed them;
naturally many could not keep up the pace of the forced march. They called after
their husbands, begging them not to desert them but John’s orders prevailed.
Josephus tells us what John supposedly said to his militia: ‘Save yourselves and
flee where you can and have your revenge on the Romans for those who are
caught’.10
The next day Titus came to the walls of Gischala to conclude the treaty. The
people who came out and hailed him as a benefactor and liberator of their people
opened the gates to him. They told him of John’s flight and begged for mercy,
telling him to punish those insurgents who still remained. Titus immediately
despatched a squadron of cavalry in pursuit of John and his men. However, they
failed to catch up with him, and he made good his escape to Jerusalem, however
many of his companions did not share his good fortune and were massacred
at the hands of the Romans, according to Josephus they killed about 6,000 and
rounded up and brought back 3,000 women and children.
Meanwhile Titus entered the city and had his troops pull down a portion of
the wall in token of its capture. He did not attempt to punish those accused of
being insurgents instead he threatened them, believing this was the best course
of action as he had no proof of their guilt except for the accusations of others. He
garrisoned the town before his departure and returned with his troops to their
 FINAL CONFLICT IN GALILEE 91

winter camps where they were to be prepared for the final battle of the war, the
capture of Jerusalem.
However, Jerusalem was in the future; Roman strategy was continuing
to reduce the military strongholds and armed bands of revolutionaries that
still existed throughout the rest of the country. The successful campaigns of
Vespasian and Titus ensured the north and west had been subdued. Attention
was also given to the east and south-east (Peraea and Idumaea), to reduce all
pockets of resistance down to a small area of Judaea that surrounded the capital,
Jerusalem.
By this time Samaria and the Sharon Plain had also been secured. The
Samaritans also had a tradition of revolution against the foreign oppressors, and
could well have joined the Jews in their rebellion, however by the first century ad,
the divisions between the two bordered on communal hatred. Nevertheless the
Samaritans had also suffered under Roman imperialism and Samaritan peasants
faced the same problems as their Jewish counterparts. In ad 36 an armed crowd
assembled at Mount Gerizim, their holy sanctuary, under the leadership of a
Samaritan messiah to challenge the authority of the Roman procurator.
A similar situation occurred again during the siege of Jotapata. Vespasian was
sent word that the Samaritans were gathering at Mount Gerizim, and naturally
he feared they were on the verge of rebellion. He sent the commander of the
V legion with 3,000 soldiers and 600 cavalry to deal with the situation. The
Samaritans were taken by surprise and barricaded themselves upon the top of
their mountain, without food or water. By 27 June many had deserted through
lack of supplies, and when the defenders were sufficiently reduced in numbers
the Romans began their ascent, storming the position they massacred everyone.
From this point onwards Samaria abandoned any revolutionary ideas, and
Roman domination went unchallenged in the area.
A similar situation occurred in the Sharon Plain where there were large Jewish
communities. Early in the autumn of ad 66 the Greeks had terrorized the Jews
with massacres both at Caesarea and Ascalon, followed shortly afterwards by the
storming of the city of Joppa by Roman troops, who killed the defenders and
burnt the city to the ground.
The earlier victory over the Romans at Beth Horon (see Chapter 4) had
given fresh hope to the revolutionary movement and Ananus, and his council in
Jerusalem sent a force to Ascalon. A small troop, roughly 500 men, and a small
contingent of cavalry were the town’s only defence. The Jews had hoped for a
surprise attack but the Romans were ready and waiting, they rode out on to the
plain to meet their attackers, as Josephus describes:

When raw levies were confronted by veteran troops infantry by cavalry undisciplined
individuals by regulars who fought as one, men with nondescript weapons by fully
92 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

armed legionaries, men guided by passion rather than by reason by men who instantly
responded to every signal, the issue could never be in doubt.11

The Jews were badly defeated and lost two of their commanders in the battle.
Nevertheless, the Jews did not give up and tried a second time to take the city, this
time the Roman commander had set ambushes in the passes on the road down
into the plain, once again the Jews were routed by Roman cavalry attacks.
However, the city of Joppa, situated on the coast, was taken by the rebels and
used as a major base for their activities in the plain of Sharon. In ad 67 as the
Romans made further incursions into the country many rebels fled to Joppa. The
Jews busied themselves building a fleet to keep themselves supplied and also to
harass Roman shipping: before long Jewish pirates were attacking Egyptian and
Syrian trade routes as well.
After the siege of Jotapata, Vespasian sent a troop of soldiers and cavalry to
take the city. The Romans managed to enter the city at night for surprisingly the
walls had been left unguarded. The Jewish defenders set out in their ships and
were waiting just off the coast. It was unfortunate a sudden gale blew up and
because Joppa had no natural harbour, but consisted of a rugged shoreline the
force of the north wind dashed the ships against each other or on to the rocks.
Most of the crews perished either by drowning, or being crushed in the wreckage,
or if they managed to struggle ashore hacked down by the waiting Roman
forces as they made their way on to the beach. The city was garrisoned and the
surrounding villages plundered or destroyed.
Tenaciously the rebels still held out in some areas of the plain. Josephus
tells us after the conquest of Galilee Vespasian still had to capture Jamnia and
Azotus before Jewish resistance was finally wiped out in the Plain of Sharon.
The territory now held by the rebels was almost half, they were effective only in
Judaea, Perea and Idumaea, and here were surrounded by Roman forces to the
north and west. To all intents and purposes the stage was now set for the final
assault on Jerusalem.
 10

Civil War in Judaea

Can any still dread the war with the foreigner and foes who are by
comparison far more lenient to us than our own people. (JW 4:183)

When John entered Jerusalem he and his men were surrounded by crowds of
people desperate for news of what was happening in Galilee. The rebels declared
the Romans had not defeated them rather they had decided not to waste valuable
manpower fighting a lost cause but decided to come to Jerusalem to defend the
city and fight them on safer ground. It would have stupid and reckless they said
to risk their lives for Gischala when they could defend the metropolis. However,
when the people heard about the massacres that had taken place they became very
alarmed and started to fear the inevitable Roman advance upon the capital.
John, according to Josephus, began to incite various groups by raising their
hopes and making out the Romans were not as strong as everyone believed,
telling them how the Roman army would have great difficulty in surmounting
the walls of Jerusalem considering their difficulties in subduing Galilee: ‘By these
harangues most of the youth were seduced into his service and incited to war’.1
However, there were many who could foresee what a final confrontation
with Rome would do to the city and its inhabitants and wanted to make peace.
Therefore the city’s population soon became divided between those who sought
peace and those who sought war. It was not just the population of Jerusalem
who were wracked by these divisions, party strife had broken out throughout
the whole country. Civil war now ensued, turning brother against brother, with
whole families being torn in two by the conflict of interests. Various groups of
individuals intent on war with Rome began to emerge, and they roamed the
countryside pillaging their neighbours, before banding together and beginning
to pillage the rest of the country until there was no difference between their
actions and that of the Romans, which Josephus seems to imply, was the lesser
of the two evils.
Finally these ‘bands of outlaws’ as Josephus refers to them, having joined
forces headed towards the capital. It was a religious obligation that all Jews could
find refuge in the city and as the city had no commander, there was no one to
stop these disaffected groups from entering. Supplies were short, and the added
numbers only made the situation in Jerusalem worse. The gangs soon began to
94 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

make sorties outside the city to raid and rob, but more importantly so Josephus
tells us, began to commit murder, especially of eminent citizens.
It was now inevitable the rebels attempted to try to seize power for themselves;
they elected their own men into the High Priesthood and caused strife between
the official authorities in order to engender a split between them. The leader
of the rebel contingent was Eleazar b. Simon, he and his Zealot militia had
been entrenched upon Temple Mount since the previous autumn. With the
arrival of John and his Galilean forces and the populace’s rising anger against
the aristocratic regime’s incompetence he took the opportunity to go on the
offensive.
They deposed the High Priest, Matthias ben Theophilos, and instituted a new
more democratic procedure for election to this post. In the past the High Priest
had been chosen by the king, Herod Agrippa, and later by Roman governors from
amongst the elite Sadducean families. The rebels then informed the populace
that they would now carry out the selection for the High Priesthood by lot, as
according to them this was the ancient custom prior to Roman occupation.
They summoned one of the High Priest clans called Eniachin, and cast lots,
from all its eligible members, for the position of High Priest. An individual
called Phanni, son of Samuel was elected. He was from a small village and had
no connection whatsoever with any priestly descent indeed he was according to
Josephus, ‘such a clown that he scarcely knew what the high priesthood meant’.
They had the poor man brought to Jerusalem, dressed him in ceremonial robes
and gave him instructions how to act. It seems the rebels thought this was highly
amusing but the other priests: ‘watching from a distance, beholding the mockery
of the law, could not restrain their tears and bemoaned the degradation of the
sacred honours’.2
According to Josephus, the final outrage performed by the rebels was the
slaying or imprisonment of members of notable families. One of their first
victims was Antipas, a member of the royal family, who was in charge of the
public treasury. They arrested and imprisoned him; Levias one of the nobles, and
Syphas, both of royal blood, the latter a person of high reputation throughout the
country, followed in similar fashion. The population of the city was now thrown
into dire panic. The rebels realized by keeping their prisoners alive they ran the
risk of their captives’ families avenging them and attempting their escape, so they
decided to have them assassinated and employed John, son of Dorcas to carry
out the deed. John and ten others entered the gaol and butchered the prisoners.
To cover their actions they made it known the prisoners had been colluding with
the Romans and therefore had been slain as traitors.
Men such as Gorion b. Joseph and Simeon b. Gamaliel, by speeches to the
assembly and private visits to individuals, urged the council to take action. They
were supported in their efforts by the most eminent of the High Priests, Jesus
 C I V I L WA R I N J U D A E A 95

b. Gamlas and Ananus b. Ananus. Ananus the senior of the chief priests finally
decided to take their advice and instigated an insurrection of the populace.3
Immediately the rebels converted the Temple into their fortress and refuge from
the outbreak of popular violence about to descend upon them. Ananus called his
supporters together and urged an armed assault upon the rebel Zealots to drive
them from Temple Mount.
While Ananus was enlisting men, probably from the aristocratic youth, the
Zealots hearing of the impending assault left Temple Mount and instigated their
own assault in the Tyropoeon Valley, between the Lower and Upper City, the same
area that had been involved in the Herodian coup of ad 66. Fighting broke out
in all parts of the city with a mutual discharge of stones, followed by long-range
javelin combat, and finally hand-to-hand sword fighting, which resulted in great
slaughter. Wounded civilians were taken into the houses by their relatives while
those Zealots who were wounded made their way back to the Temple. Through
grim determination the ill-equipped populace won the day and managed to push
the Zealots back through the gates of the Sanctuary, across the Outer Court and
into the Temple itself.
The Zealots barricaded themselves in and remained secure from further
attack, however, they were not completely cut off from the rest of the city, now
surrounded by government soldiers. Ananus did not think it right to make
an assault on the Temple and so had selected 6,000 armed men to guard the
porticoes, who took it in rote to do the duty.
This was just the beginning of an internal revolution that would shake the city
to its foundations. While the battle with the Zealots had been taking place the
other militias had stood aside. It could possibly have been because they wished
to ascertain the final outcome before they made their stand. It would have been
to their advantage to see the Zealots crushed, as they were their main rivals to
power. However, Ananus now sent a delegation to Vespasian inviting him to come
and take over the city. Ananus had already made his feelings clear in the speech
he made to the crowd:

Is it not lamentable that, while the Romans never violated one of our scared usages . . .,
persons born in this very country, nurtured under our institutions and calling themselves
Jews should freely perambulate our holy places . . . Indeed if one must nicely fit the phrase
to the fact, it is the Romans who may well be found to have been the upholders of our
laws, while their enemies were within the walls.4

Elite Jews, like Ananus and Josephus, although in the minority had hoped they
would be able to contain the popular movements while at the same time win
battles throughout the rest of the country. By doing so they would have been able
to negotiate a peace with Rome and possibly reinstate a client king, like Herod
96 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Agrippa. However, the internal revolution divided the aristocracy and their plan
to seek peace with Rome was now untenable. They faced either annihilation at
the hands of the popular revolutionaries or Roman rule, and for them the latter
seemed preferable.
Josephus tells us that John of Gischala was personally responsible for the
collapse of Ananus’ party. He says John accompanied Ananus on his rounds
pretending to side with the cause, then he would slip away at night to the Zealot
camp and tell them all he had learnt:

Seeking to escape suspicion, he displayed unbounded servility to Ananus and the heads
of the popular party, but this obsequiousness had the reverse effect; for his extravagant
flatteries only brought more suspicion upon him, and his ubiquitous and uninvited
presence produced the impression that he was betraying secrets.5

John was bound over by oath and swore he would be true to the people, and not
betray their plans. Believing him Ananus now admitted him without further
suspicion and even went as far as to make him their delegate to the Zealots to
arrange a treaty because they were anxious to preserve the Temple from further
pollution. John is quoted by Josephus as making the following speech to the
Zealots:

Often I have risked my life on your behalf to keep you fully informed of all the secret
schemes devised against you by Ananus and his followers; but now I am exposing myself
to the greatest of perils, in which you will all be involved, unless some providential aid
intervene to avert it. For Ananus impatient of delay has prevailed on the people to send
an embassy to Vespasian inviting him to come at once and take possession of the city.6

He then further incited them by telling them Ananus was offering them terms
only to trap them into leaving the Temple, once outside they would be set upon
by the guards. He urged them to seek external aid, although from where he did
not specify, though according to Josephus, it would come from the Idumaeans.
The Zealot leaders Eleazar b. Gion and Zacharias, both of priestly descent
having decided to summon aid from the Idumaeans drafted a letter to the effect
that Ananus was about to betray them to Rome. They sent two messengers with
the letter who were instructed to speak eloquently on behalf of the Zealot cause.
The Idumaeans were ready to join forces and sent 20,000 men to march on
Jerusalem under the command of four generals John, James b. Sosas, Simon b.
Thaceas and Phineas b. Clusoth.
When this army approached Jerusalem Ananus shut the gates and mounted
guards upon the walls. He tried to parley with them and sent Jesus the next in
line to the High Priesthood to the tower opposite to speak to them. This proved
 C I V I L WA R I N J U D A E A 97

to be of no avail as the Idumaeans were unwilling to lay down their arms or turn
against the Zealots. The gates remained locked, denying them the right all Jews
had to enter the city, and they spent the night weathering a torrential storm
outside the walls with only their shields to cover them from the rain.
Josephus says this storm was a portent, and one can imagine that a good
number of the population would have viewed it in a similar way, he says: ‘Such a
convulsion of the very fabric of the universe clearly foretokened destruction for
mankind, and the conjecture was natural that these were portents of no trifling
calamity’.7
The signs were viewed as a message from God who was angry with the
Idumaeans for bearing arms against His Holy city, and one can imagine that
Ananus and his party also believed God had intervened to win the battle for
them. However, it was not only the Idumaeans who were suffering the effects
of the torrential storm; many of the guards on duty along the walls also sought
refuge in their own homes, or in the towers or colonnades.
The Zealots tried to find a way to help their allies. A group of them left their
comrades and made their way across the Outer Court. They sawed through the
gates of the Sanctuary and made their way across the city to the wall opposite the
Idumaean camp; the Idumaeans at first supposed they were under attack and the
men were Ananus’ troops. The gates of the city were opened and the Idumaeans
flooded through. Their first act was to free the Zealots taken into custody, then
they made their way to Temple Mount where they attacked the soldiers who
were guarding the colonnade. Josephus tells us by dawn there were 8,500 dead;
although how reliable this figure is we cannot say.
The Idumaeans and their Zealot allies now turned their attention upon the rest
of the city, looting every house and killing all who stood in their way. They went
in search of the chief priests, who were soon captured and slain. The leadership
of the aristocratic government was now over. Ananus b. Ananus was among the
first to be executed along with his close associate Jesus b. Gamala, the man who
had been responsible for trying to negotiate with the Idumaeans.
Then the nobility were arrested and thrown into prison and a series of trials
were held. Josephus tells of the show trial of Zachariah b. Baruch, a rich aristocrat
who was charged with treason, before a jury of 70 men. He was acquitted but the
Zealots raised such an outcry that as he was preparing to leave two of them set
upon him and slew him in the midst of the Temple exclaiming, ‘Now you have
our verdict also and a more certain release’.
However, this trial and execution appear to be the exception rather than the
rule. There seem to have been few executions amongst the rest of the nobility,
who remained imprisoned, and Josephus lists only a few names. Although he
tells us that thousands died at this time, in reality the numbers were far fewer,
perhaps only amounting to a few hundred.
98 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

With the collapse of the old regime the Zealots had to secure their rule. The
countryside had rallied in defence of the capital, and a fresh upsurge of revolu-
tionary fervour spread to the villages:

In all the districts of Judaea there was an upsurge in terrorism dormant hitherto; and as
in the body if the chief member is inflamed all the others are infected, so when strife and
disorder broke out in the capital the scoundrels in the country could plunder with impu-
nity, and each group after plundering their own village vanished into the wilderness.8

Josephus goes on to speak of these groups joining forces and organizing themselves
into companies, smaller than an army but big bigger than armed gangs, so that
every corner of Judaea was ‘going the same way as the capital’. Josephus gives
a more specific example when he speaks of events in eastern Idumaea on the
shores of the Dead Sea. Here there stood a fortress, Masada, originally built by
earlier kings. Herod the Great had expanded it to serve as a refuge in times of
need against the two dangers he envisaged. First the Jewish people might rise up
against him and depose him, second the fear of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, who
had her sights set on regaining this part of the east for Egypt.
It took Herod a long time to build Masada, as the remains today testify, but
eventually with the most detailed planning and aid of master craftsmen he
succeeded in converting the desert cliff into a uniquely well-appointed fortress.
Josephus describes Masada in the following manner. He [Herod] built a wall
surrounding the mountain-top, seven stadia long; 12 cubits (5 m) high and 8
cubits (4 m) wide; and on the wall all round he built 37 towers. Herod also built
himself a palace on the western decline, below the wall, which surrounded the
peak, and everywhere Herod hewed cisterns out of the rock, and in that manner
he was able to provide water for those living there as though there were springs
at their disposal. Thus the fortress was fortified against any enemy who might
wage war against it.
It was on this fortress a band of Zealots now made their camp. Josephus refers
to them as Sicarii (dagger men). They had been here since the rebellion first
broke out in ad 66 but according to Josephus they had merely raided the nearby
districts to procure supplies, with the exception of one brief foray into Jerusalem.
When they heard what was happening in the city, and that the Roman army
was making no advance towards the capital, they immediately began to make
more raids. The first was on Engeddi where they cut down its defences and took
provisions which they brought back to Masada, this was followed by further raids
in the area, all the time swelling their ranks with as Josephus calls them ‘further
ruffians like themselves from all sides’.
It is important to note the impression that Josephus gives may be a false one.
It would not make sense for these ‘bandits’ to raid villages where they would
 C I V I L WA R I N J U D A E A 99

naturally hope for support for the revolution rather than alienation. It would
seem more feasible to suppose the raids and looting carried out was done to lands
and property of the aristocrats.
Revolution raged in the countryside where thousands of Jewish peasants were
still bearing arms against Rome, however Rome itself was also wracked with
internal strife at this time (see the following chapter). Around Jerusalem many
new strongholds of resistance were being created, from caves in the hills to the
fortresses of Masada, Herodium and Machaerus, manned mainly by peasant
farmers, who were now forming the heart and soul of the revolution. They relied
upon the apocalyptic vision of the sects to provide the underlying ideology of
the revolution, and also to provide the leadership needed to organize a diverse
group of parochial peasants.
Power was now in hands of the radical militants, Eleazar the Zealot, John of
Gischala and Simon the Idumaean. The Zealots had been in the Temple precincts
longer than the others, however, they lacked numbers, according to Josephus only
around 2,400 men in total. It is clear some of the Zealots were priests; one author
has described them as ‘militant traditionalists’ and likens them to modern groups
like Palestinian Hamas, or Lebanese Hezbullah.9
On the other hand John of Gischala led a greater force roughly 6,000 consisting
not only of his Galilean followers but many new recruits who joined him when
he arrived in Jerusalem, also to these numbers were added those existing militia
men who allied themselves to him in a loose coalition. It seems that for a while
John was the leading political figure in Jerusalem.
Josephus says John, in his words, out of a perverse desire for self-aggrandisement
and power, broke away from the coalition. He was abandoned by a large number
of antagonists who feared John sought monarchical rule for himself:

Such then was the origins of the split in the party, and John confronted his adversaries
as a rival sovereign. However their attitude to each other was purely defensive and there
were seldom if ever any skirmishes in arms between them; but they were rival oppressors
of the people and vied with each other in carrying off larger spoils.10

The other formidable army in the city were the Idumaeans. In the beginning they
had taken their lead from the other groups for as already noted they had been
called to the aid of the Zealots, which they had responded to, and then disbanded
having no real political motivation to remain. However, some members did
remain behind, according to Josephus in early ad 70 5,000 men were under the
command of Jacob b. Sosas and Simon b. Cathas.
There was also a new revolutionary upsurge taking place in the villages of
Idumaea and southern Judaea, led by Simon b. Giora. Eleazar was the leader of a
millenarian sect who believed the final days were at hand, whereas Simon was the
100 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

leader of a people’s revolution whose aim was the emancipation of the peasants.
Simon was a young, intelligent and charismatic figure, who Josephus says was
held in ‘special awe and respect’ by his men.
Simon came from north-east Judaea the region of Acrabatene and joined the
defence of Jerusalem earlier the war; in ad 66 he had commanded militia in the
battle fought against the procurator Cestius Gallus. Despite this the government
of Ananus placed little trust in him and he was given no government post but
driven from Acrabatene and forced to seek exile in Idumaea. While in exile he
formed an alliance with the Zealots at Masada but at the same time he had formed
his own group of militia comprised of other Judaean exiles and Idumaeans.
With the overthrow of the government and death of Ananus, Simon saw his
opportunity to make a challenge to John for the leadership of Jerusalem. He
collected an army consisting in the most part of refugees from the Zealots camp,
and when the Romans retired from the area in the middle of ad 68, he got control
of the area of his previous command without opposition and held it against
Zealot attack. He then invaded Idumaea. Despite putting up some resistance the
district was finally handed over to Simon by a traitor, and many Idumaeans now
joined his army. He created a fortified stronghold at a place called Nain where
many new recruits joined him, including, according to Josephus, members of
the elite.
Simon now proclaimed freedom for the slaves and rewards for the free. This
is the message of the Jubilee, and presumably in those areas under his control
slaves were freed and debts cancelled, as well as land redistributed. Josephus tells
us he commanded armies between 20,000 and 40,000 strong and built many
fortifications and storehouses, which implies this was turning into a peasant
war.
In the spring of ad 69 Simon tuned his attention to Jerusalem and encamped
outside the city walls. John and the Zealots had established themselves as leaders
and had instigated a reign of terror. Both armies clashed outside the city but
the Zealots were forced back by Simon and retreated into the city. The Zealots
managed to capture Simon’s wife but his treats of retribution if any harm came
to her were taken so seriously she was returned unscathed.
However, Simon faced a more serious threat in Idumaea where conservative
forces rallied to defend local properties. The first battle, which lasted a whole day,
was inconclusive. Simon rallied a greater force and although he failed to take the
Idumaean stronghold at Herodium, treachery and desertion from the Idumaean
camp ensured the main Idumaean force was destroyed before a single blow had
been struck. Josephus describes how such treachery came about:

For this service James, one of their [Idumaean] officers, promptly volunteered,
meditating treachery. He according set out from Alurus, the village where the Idumaean
 C I V I L WA R I N J U D A E A 101

army was concentrated, and repaired to Simon. With him he made a compact, first to
deliver up his own native place, after receiving an assurance on oath that he should
always hold some post of honour; he further undertook to assist in the subjugation of
the whole of Idumaea.11

Simon was now in control of the south and the most powerful of all revolutionary
leaders. There was only one place to go and that was Jerusalem, where the
popularity of Eleazar and John was on the wane. This gave the conservative
forces a chance to take over the leadership; the Idumaean militia in Jerusalem had
broken with the radicals and formed an alliance with the High Priests, who had
luckily mustered their forces. They had combined in an attack on the Zealots and
Galileans and drove them from most parts of the city forcing them to seek refuge
on Temple Mount and the royal palace on the Ophel hill to the south.
Simon had encamped outside the city, and was given access by the Idumaeans
who had lost faith in the leadership of Eleazar and John. On gaining access Simon
straight away began to oust the Zealots entrenched in the Temple. The split that
had occurred between John and the Zealots a year earlier was further exacerbated,
instead of them joining forces against the outside threat it became even deeper
than before, and a three-cornered struggle began. The Roman historian Tacitus
remarks: ‘There were three different leaders and three armies . . . until, on the
approach of Romans, fighting the foreigner healed the breach between them’.12
A small group of 2,400 Zealots under the leadership of Eleazar held the inner
courts, while John’s party numbering 6,000 held the outer court and part of the
Lower City on the Ophel and fought on two fronts, between Eleazar and Simon.
Simon had the greatest army numbering 15,000 and he controlled the Upper City
and most of the Lower. As Simon held most of the Lower City, then presumably
John held the rest as he did in ad 70.
One of the effects of the conflict was the burning of large stocks of grain,
particularly serious if the year October ad 68–9 was sabbatical and fresh supplies
were not available from outside. Before the next harvest gathered in April–May
ad 70, Jerusalem was under siege and severe famine one of the hardships suffered;
a consequence of which was the weakening of the rebel militia, unable through
hunger to continue the struggle.
Simon’s government had been brought to supreme power in March/April ad
69 and became as firmly established as John’s had the previous year. It seems
Simon managed to gain the support of many of the remaining ruling class
including Ananus b. Bagadatus, who became responsible for overseeing the
execution of deserters to Rome during the siege.
Simon’s control of the city made the alliance between John and Eleazar no
longer viable as far as Eleazar was concerned, and he hoped for an alliance with
the more powerful group attached to Simon. It is not clear whether Simon
102 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

accepted his alliance but John pre-empted any attempt at a new coalition by
regaining the inner Temple by trickery and Eleazar and his supporters had to
accept his leadership against Simon and Rome for the rest of the war.
The rebels were now confident of victory against the advancing might of
Rome and the Jewish state functioned as if it were a permanent fixture. The best
evidence for this comes from the rebel coinage issues of the period, ‘which survive
as testimony independent of Josephus’ account of the war’.13 Those of the fourth
year (ad 69–70) are exceptionally well minted, and the coin types changed only
slightly from the first issues, incorporating slogans that emphasized liberty and
the holiness of Jerusalem. Even the Temple service continued up to the last days of
the war, and although the inner court served as Zealot headquarters they allowed
all those who wanted to enter to worship to do so. In fact it seems even pilgrims
still flooded into the city right up to the time of its downfall, Josephus says:

Of these [prisoners of Rome] the greater number were of Jewish blood although not
natives of the place; for having assembled from every part of the country for the feast of
unleavened bread, they found themselves suddenly enveloped in the war.14

Not even the campaign of terror tactics employed by the Romans throughout
the rest of the country to demoralize and frighten the rebels seems to have been
a deterrent to those in Jerusalem, who appeared to ignore the awful events that
continued to take place in the rest of the country. It was obvious such terror
tactics would be beneficial to the Romans, especially knowing Jerusalem’s walls
would be difficult to breach and any technique that could avoid the loss of
thousands of soldiers would naturally be employed.
It has been pointed out:

The Jews can be forgiven for being complacent, not understanding the complexities
of Roman law or politics that rendered Vespasian’s position simultaneously dangerous
and advantageous after Nero’s death, saw only the reluctance of the Romans to commit
themselves to the fight.15

However, it is noted that Josephus offers another reason for Vespasian’s hesitancy
implying Vespasian’s reluctance to advance on the capital was because he was
waiting for civil dissension to destroy the rebels. This may well be a valid reason.
Whatever the case, with hindsight, despite the confidence of the rebel forces their
faction fighting was to prove to have been a costly mistake. Instead of using this
time to unify a strategy, capitalizing on the fact the Roman campaign in Judaea
was on hold, and preparing against the Roman advance, the rebels had been
busy vying for supremacy of a new independent Jewish state, which was to be
short-lived.
 C I V I L WA R I N J U D A E A 103

The chaos that ensued in Rome in ad 69 was reflected throughout the empire.
Revolts occurred in north-east Anatolia led by Anicetus, the ex-commander of
the royal fleet of Polemo II of Pontus whose territory had been taken over by Nero
five years earlier, in Britain there was a rebellion led by Venutius in opposition to
Queen Cartimandua and her Roman allies, and finally in Germany where Civilis
sought independence from the Batavi tribe; Rome and its leadership were now
on the brink of civil war.
This page intentionally left blank
 11

Civil War in Rome

The secret of empire was that now emperors could be

made in places other than Rome. (Tacitus Histories 1.4)

The year ad 69 was also turbulent in the history of Rome, and the main reason
why the war in Judaea was put on hold. In early ad 68 the siege of Jerusalem
seemed imminent so Vespasian’s decision to march the army out of Judaea
and back to the coast made little sense. Rebel territory had been reduced to the
desert area of which only a few strongholds remained, Macheraus, Masada and
Herodium, and these could have been dealt with quickly once Jerusalem had
fallen. The reason behind Vespasian’s action was not a military decision but a
political one, for there was a major crisis occurring in Rome, where civil war had
been brewing for some time.
The crisis seems to have begun with the fall of the Senecan government in
ad 62. Seneca was a senior senator under the emperor Nero. He fell from power
that same year and was required to retire and relinquish his vast wealth to Nero.
In ad 65 he was forced to commit suicide after the failed plot by Piso. The collapse
of the government was followed by assumption of power, led by the emperor
Nero along with a small court faction, which consisted of the emperor’s new
wife Poppaea Sabina and the praetorian prefect Tigellinus. Nero’s extravagances
led to a crisis of confidence amongst the ruling classes who were concerned for
their safety and the safety of their property. It was also of major concern to them
that the empire was being bled dry to accommodate the emperor’s proliferate
lifestyle which had already resulted in a series of rebellions throughout various
parts of the empire during the 60s ad, of which the Jewish one was by far the
more disturbing.
The Roman auxiliary troops on the Rhine had revolted and were joined
by Gallic chieftains and Druids. They managed for a short while to establish
an ‘empire of the Gauls’ in the western Rhineland and received massive local
support.
In ad 65, in a desperate attempt to remove the emperor, several members
of the aristocracy, including politicians, members of the army and intellectuals
including the poet Lucan, conspired to assassinate Nero and place Calpurnius
Piso on the throne. However, they were betrayed and a reign of terror was
106 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

instigated causing many to go in fear of their lives. This was no doubt initiated
by Tigellinus, who Tacitus called Nero’s evil genius. Informers were encouraged
to denounce others and many people were no doubt wrongly accused by their
enemies for conspiring against the emperor and forced to commit suicide. A
situation not dissimilar to the ‘Reign of Terror’ during the reign of the emperor
Tiberius, 30 years earlier and instigated by his ‘evil genius’, Aelius Sejanus,
commander of the Praetorian Guard.
In ad 66/7 the emperor Nero made a fateful mistake when he executed the three
most powerful generals of the empire, Rufus, Proclus and Corbulo. This further
increased the fears of the aristocracy who felt if such action could be carried out
on these men then they too would eventually fall victim to the emperor’s whim.
In ad 68 the end came in a rather unexpected way, when Helios the freedman
who had been left in charge of Rome while the emperor was away, journeyed to
Greece to persuade Nero to return. It appears Helios may have heard rumours of
possible rebellion in Gaul, although the sources are not clear on this point.1
Consequently, Nero was persuaded to return. During the following year Julius
Vindex, a Gallic nobleman and governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, led a rebellion
in Gaul, inciting the population with his anti-Nero propaganda. In fact Vindex’s
uprising is remarkably similar to the revolt occurring in Judaea. Although Vindex
wished for the liberty of Rome to be restored, more importantly his followers may
have had a different motive being fired to rebellion by local discontent, rather
than political matters in Rome.
Nero was slow to act. He had just appointed two new governors to control the
Rhine legions, Verginius Rufus and Fonteius Capito; with the powerful Rhine
legions in control then any threat from the Gallic tribes could be considered a
minor threat. However, Vindex was in close contact with the governor of Hispania
(Spain), Galba, and declared his support for him. Galba was an experienced
general, appointed by the emperor Gaius (Caligula), and noted for his severity.
However, he only had one legion under his command and needed more support
other than that offered him by Vindex if he was to attempt to march on Rome.
Vindex forced his hand and proclaimed him emperor, so Galba declared
his intention and soon received the support of other governors of the Spanish
provinces, including Otho (the divorced husband of Poppaea Sabina, the new
wife of Nero). Nero’s position now began to disintegrate rapidly. Galba was
a major political figure, and as such would have been able to rely on a large
senatorial following as well as being able to secure the support of quite a few
provincial governors. However, in terms of military strength Galba was weak
as he only had one legion under his command, while Nero could call upon the
mass forces of the empire.
Sometime later the governor of Africa, Claudius Macer, also made a bid for
the throne, now Nero was threatened on two fronts, so he placed Petronius
 C I V I L WA R I N R O M E 107

Turpillianus in charge of the Italian forces. What happened next is not clear
but Vindex apparently entered into negotiations with Verginius Rufus at the
conclusion of which Rufus attacked and massacred Vindex’s forces. Vindex took
his own life, and when Galba heard the news he retired expecting his own death
would soon follow.
In Rome Nero’s position was collapsing; grain prices were rising; Turpillianus
proved disloyal; the Roman political classes weighed up the possibilities and Nero
found his support gradually disappearing. Sabinus, who had been appointed
prefect of the praetorians decided, given all the available information, Nero would
lose. Sabinus offered the soldiers a huge bribe if they switched their support to
Galba, naturally they did and the senate legalized their position by declaring
Nero a public enemy and declaring Galba emperor. The courtiers abandoned the
imperial palace and Nero fled the city accompanied by only his closest associates.
Accounts of his last days are full of fiction. Among many rumours circulating
at the time were those that told of his plans to flee to the east, or retire to earn a
living on the stage, something that may well have been true given Nero’s fondness
for music and drama. Sabinus persuaded the praetorians that by fleeing the city
Nero had abandoned them and so they should move against the emperor. A
contingent of cavalry was sent after Nero and in a suburb outside Rome Nero
killed himself. Reportedly his last words were ‘I such an artist, perish’.2
The death of Nero left Galba in a strong position, but this was to disintegrate
in a remarkably short period, for Galba was unable to consolidate his support and
more importantly severely overestimated his security. He killed many prominent
men and his strict disciplinarian nature won him few friends. He embarked on
a limited reorganization of the provincial commanders. The general Vitellius
was sent to Germania Inferior and Flaccus to Germania Superior, while the east
remained the same. He made no attempt to win over those who had supported
Nero’s regime and the troops raised by Nero remained in Rome; furthermore
he did not attempt to reorganize the praetorians. A legion raised by Nero from
members of the fleet petitioned Galba to remain legionaries but Galba refused so
they became disorderly. Galba charged them with cavalry and brought them to
order, then he proceeded to decimate them (a punishment that involved executing
every tenth man). Galba also managed to lose the support of some of his former
allies. For example, Otho received no reward for his loyalty and Caecina who had
represented Galba at crucial moments in Germany also received nothing. Instead
authority was placed in the hands of three members of the court, Vinius, who had
led Galba’s army, Laco a praetorian prefect and Icelus, a freedman.
By January ad 69 Galba’s rule fell apart. It was customary for an oath of loyalty
to be administered to the troops on the first day of the year. The German legions
refused, mutinied and turned to Vitellius who was a popular leader. In Rome
the praetorians also grew restless. Otho had ingratiated himself with officers
108 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

and men by bribery. Galba responded by adopting Licianus a young nobleman

as his heir, however the troops expected to receive a donative (a monetary
payment) to celebrate the event. Galba refused and the troops became even more
discontented.
On 15 January Otho staged a coup, which by all accounts appears to have been
a rather disorganized affair. Galba’s supporters tried to gather as many troops
as possible but failed to find enough men. News began to circulate that Otho had
been killed but as Galba and his supporters celebrated in the forum the praetorians
arrived. Galba’s supporters fled and Galba was ignominiously murdered.

Near the basin of Curtius the panic of his bearers caused Galba to be flung sprawling
from his chair. His last words are variously recorded by the conflicting voices of hatred
and admiration. Some say that he grovelled and asked what he had done to deserve
his fate, begging a few days grace to pay the bounty. The majority of historians believe
that he voluntarily bared his throat to the assassins, telling them to strike and be done
with it, if this is what seemed best for the country. Little did the murderers care what
he said. The identity of the killer is in doubt. Some authorities speak of a veteran called
Terrentius. Others mention one Laecanius. The more usual version holds that a soldier
of the fifteenth legion named Camurius thrust his sword deep into Galba’s throat. The
rest of them with revolting butchery hacked at his legs and arms (as these unlike the
rest of his body was not protected by armour). These sadistic monsters even inflicted a
number of wounds on the already truncated torso.3

The accession of Otho did very little to appease the German legions so he had no
other recourse than to prepare for conflict. First he needed to secure the loyalty
of the troops in Rome and Italy and in this he was successful. He also managed to
secure the support of the prominent generals. One of the reasons for his success
was he associated himself with Nero even toying with the idea of calling himself
Nero-Otho. He restored the statues of Poppaea and encouraged the exhibition of
Nero’s portraits. Nero’s freedmen and procurators were restored to office and he
continued building work on the Domus Aurea, the golden palace built by Nero
after the great fire in ad 66 that had practically destroyed all the 14 quarters of
Rome. Nero had been extremely popular amongst the plebeians, so much so
many believed he was still alive and there were constant reports of sightings of
him from all over the empire.
Otho also tried to win the support of his former enemies and those who
had allied themselves to Galba. There were some exceptions but mainly all
Galba’s supporters were pardoned, including Celsus who had attempted to
organize a military resistance against Otho; he was given a command. Potential
enemies were also given some consideration, and with the appointment of
Flavius Sabinus, the brother of Vespasian, to the important post of Praefectus
 C I V I L WA R I N R O M E 109

Urbi, this was accomplished. Rufus also achieved prominence being nominated
for consulship. Those who had suffered under Nero and had their property
confiscated, now had it restored, a very generous act given that the treasury was
in a particularly bad state.
Otho also gathered sufficient troops in Italy to be able to resist Vitellius,
and the approaching Danubian legions may well have tipped the balance in his
favour had they arrived on time. On 1 January when the oath of loyalty was
to be administered to the troops in Germania Inferior they had mutinied and
refused to accept Galba as their emperor yet there was no declaration in favour
of Vitellius instead they swore loyalty to the senate and the people of Rome. On
2 January Fabius Valens greeted Vitellius as emperor and by 3 January the legions
of Germania Superior had also mutinied. It was at this moment that Vitellius
began to organize his rebellion. The generals implemented an aggressive policy,
Otho sent troops to Gallia Narbonensis where they had some success; however,
the contest was to be decided in Italy. The military arm seems to have been led
by Caecina and Valens they marched into Italy in two columns and achieved
varying success, but at Bedriacum they managed to deliver the fatal blow against
Otho, and consequently Vitellius was victorious. The defeat proved to be decisive
but all did not appear to be completely lost. Surprisingly, rather than prolong
the civil war, Otho on the advice of his friends chose to end it by committing
suicide, after ruling for only 95 days. This is what the historian Suetonius has to
say about his demise.

the sensation caused by Otho’s end was, I am inclined to think, largely due to its contrast
with the life he had led. Soldiers who were present kissed the dead man’s hands and feet,
weeping bitterly and praising him as the bravest man they had ever known and the best
emperor imaginable; and afterwards they committed suicide themselves close to his
funeral pyre.4

The march to Rome from Germany had been slow and the Romans took
every opportunity en route to extract money from the communities they passed
through.

On the outset of the march he had himself carried through the main cities of his route,
in triumphal fashion; crossed rivers in elaborately decorated barges wreathed in garlands
of many kinds; and always kept a lavish supply of delicacies available.5

The historian Dio Cassius also criticises the eating habits of Vitellius and the
cost of his lavish meals. The march continued, then on reaching Italy there were
clashes between the troops and the civilian population. The troops committed
unspeakable acts of barbarity upon them:
110 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Not content with being feasted everywhere at public expense, they amused themselves by
freeing slaves at random and then beating, whipping and wounding, and even murdering
whoever tried to restrain them.6

Such was Vitellius’ insensitivity that the numbers of dead civilians littering one
nearby battlefield caused him to remark: ‘Only one thing stinks worse than the
corpse of an enemy and that is the corpse of a fellow citizen’.7 Nevertheless he
apparently took a good swig of wine to counteract the stink and then passed the
flagon round.
Many of the aristocrats regarded the approach of Vitellius with some
trepidation. While Otho had been successful in reconciling differences, Valens
and Caecina had acted violently, and received no reprimand from their general,
this brought doubts to their minds with regard to the attitude of Vitellius. With
the death of Otho there was no suitable candidate to take his place so they were
left with little choice. Sabinus administered an oath of loyalty to the troops in
Rome and the armies of the eastern empire quickly followed suit.
Vitellius delayed accepting the titles of Caesar and Augustus although he did
accept the constitutional powers that went with the titles. Vitellius appointed
equestrians to the household offices breaking with the tradition of appointing
freedmen. This was no doubt a tactic designed to try to reconcile the aristocracy
to his rule.
He also tried to win the support of the Neronians by making funerary offerings
to Nero in the Campus Martius in Rome. Vitellius staged lavish entertainments
and even suggested Sporus, the ex lover of Nero, should appear on stage taking
the role of a woman, however Sporus killed himself to avoid the shame.
The major problem for Vitellius was military. His troops had not inflicted
a major military defeat on Otho, and the legions in the east were disaffected.
Vitellius disbanded those praetorians that had shown loyalty to Otho and
executed the Othonian centurions in the Danubian legions, which although
may have removed potential enemies did little to endear him to the surviving
members of the legions or their officers.
Vitellius’ military insecurity meant he had to maintain a very large garrison,
some 2,000 men in Rome alone, perhaps more to intimidate than to control
and many of the men came from the legions in Germany. His problems were
increased by the revolt of the Batavians led by Julius Civilis. This involved the
auxiliaries Vitellius had recruited for his war effort, so he was unable to draw on
reinforcements from these areas.
However the major threat was from the governors in the east. Initially the
eastern armies (in Judaea, Syria and Egypt) had accepted Vitellius, but it seems
this was only a temporary measure. On 1 July Julius Tiberius Alexander, prefect of
Egypt administered the oath of loyalty to the troops stationed there in the name
 C I V I L WA R I N R O M E 111

of Vespasian. By 3 July Judaea and Syria followed suit. The declaration had been
a messy affair but the prompt action on the part of the Flavians (Vespasian and
Titus) suggests it had been planned.
Mucianus the governor of Syria was sent west to lead the war effort while
Vespasian went to Alexandria. The Danubian legions now took this opportunity
to move against Vitellius and led by Antonius Primus they marched on Italy
without awaiting the arrival of Mucianus. Although Vitellius had a large force
in Rome and could call upon limited support from the western provinces, the
Flavian forces were potentially overwhelming. As the legions crossed into Italy it
seemed highly likely Vitellius would lose the war: this probably accounts for the
defection to the Flavians of Caecina the leading general of Vitellius, however he
was unable to bring his troops with him.
The two armies met at Cremona and fought a night battle which culminated in
the rout of the Vitellian forces. The Flavian forces captured their camp and drove
on to Cremona itself where the city was sacked. The Vitellians were defeated,
though pockets of resistance continued. The Flavian troops began looting the
city until the leader of the Danubian legions, Antonius Primus, eventually
managed to drag them away to head for Rome. There were a series of minor
engagements some of which produced limited successes for the Vitellian forces
but the overwhelming numbers of the Flavian forces led to further defections
from the Vitellian camp.
Vitellius entered into negotiations in Rome with Sabinus, Vespasian’s brother. It
seems he may have received assurances from Sabinus concerning his safety and so
he abdicated, leaving the palace and entering the forum as a private citizen. As
Sabinus organized the takeover the situation altered quite dramatically and Vitellius
was retuned to the palace forcibly although there were demonstrations in his
favour. The Flavian party seized the Capitoline Hill where they came under siege
from Vitellian forces. During the siege the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, the
most important temple in Rome, was destroyed, the Vitellian forces defeated the
senators who were holding the Capitol, and Sabinus was executed. The younger
son of Vespasian, the future emperor Domitian, managed to escape to safety.

Domitian was concealed in the lodging of a temple attendant when the assailants broke
into the citadel; then through the cleverness of a freedman he was dressed in a linen robe
and was so able to join the crowd of devotees without being recognised and to escape
to the house of Cornelius Primus, one of his fathers clients near the Velarum where he
remained in concealment.8

The Flavian legions arrived on the outskirts of Rome but did not receive the
expected surrender. Therefore they forced their way into the city, where the
Vitellian forces fought a hopeless rearguard action across the city, resulting in the
112 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

capture of the praetorian barracks. Vitellius fled the palace only to return later
when he was captured and killed.

Vitellius was forced at the point of the sword now to lift his face and offer it to his captors
insults, now to see his own statues falling and to look again and again on the rostra or
the place where Galba had been killed. Finally the soldiers drove him to the demonian
stairs where the body of Flavius Sabinus had recently been lying. His only utterance
marked his spirit as not ignoble, for when the tribune insulted him he replied ‘yet I was
your emperor’ then he fell under a shower of blows; and the people attacked his body
after he was dead with the same base spirit with which they had fawned on him while
he was alive.9

Like his predecessor, Vitellius seems to have had notable political success. In the
time from his appointment of command of the legions of Germania Inferior
to his death in ad 69 he managed to win the loyalty of the German troops who
had won two wars for him, many of whom lost their lives during the battles of
Cremona and the last stand in Rome. He also won the loyalty of the people of
Rome who supported him right up to the end. However, the major problem that
led to his downfall was the fact he failed to resolve the tensions in the Roman
state and win the loyalty of the Roman troops stationed there. In this respect like
Otho and Galba before him he failed to win political legitimacy.
Vespasian, however, was in a far stronger position than Vitellius. He had the
backing of the legions in the east and easily defeated the western legions, coupled
with the fact the conflict in Germany and Gaul in ad 69–70 led to the defeat of
the remaining forces in Germany. There was no substantial threat to challenge
Vespasian, he numbered amongst his generals his eldest son Titus, Mucianus and
some of Otho’s generals who were also given positions of prominence.
When news reached Vespasian in the late spring of ad 68 of the death of Nero
and the subsequent accession of Galba, Vespasian sent his son Titus, along with
King Herod Agrippa to pay homage to the new emperor and obtain fresh orders
for the campaign in Judaea. While they were on their way news reached them
of Galba’s untimely death, so Titus returned to Caesarea. Here, the generals met
to discuss tactics and also to wait for the outcome of the impending conflict
between Otho and Vitellius. When news finally arrived it was disastrous for
the eastern legions. Vitellian forces now had control, which meant control of
Rome was in the hands of the Rhineland forces. The historian Suetonius
reports a rumour that Vitellius was intending to switch the western and eastern
legions, forcing the later to exchange the relative comfort and ease of the city
billets for wooden forts in the cold and wet German forests.
Josephus reports the mood of the troops prevalent in Vespasian’s camp:
 C I V I L WA R I N R O M E 113

However his officers and men, in friendly gatherings were already frankly discussing a
revolution. ‘Those soldiers in Rome’ they indignantly exclaimed ‘now living in luxury,
who cannot bear to hear even a rumour of war, are electing whom they chose to the
sovereignty and in hope of lucre creating emperors; whilst we who have undergone
numerous toils and are growing grey beneath our helmets, are giving up our privileges
to others, when all the time we have among us one more worthy of the government.
What juster return can we ever render him for his kindness to us if we fling away the
present opportunity. Vespasian’s claim to the empire is as far superior to that of Vitellius,
as are we to the electors of that emperor; for surely we have waged wars no less arduous
than the legions of Germany, nor are we inferior in arms to the troops we have thence
brought back this tyrant.’10

Josephus implies that Vespasian was reluctant to accept the nomination and one
can perhaps understand his hesitation, as the position was certainly a precarious
one.

Their general had long been concerned for the public weal, but had never purposed
his own promotion; for, though conscious that his career would justify such claim, he
referred the security of private life to the perils of this illustrious station. But on declining,
the officers pressed him more insistently, and the soldiers flocking with drawn swords,
threatened him with death, if he refused to live with dignity. After forcibly representing
to them his many reasons for rejecting imperial honours, finally, failing to convince them,
he yielded to their call.11

However, it seemed an eastern coup was inevitable. Tiberius Alexander declared

for him, which gave him both the Nile troops and of course the Egyptian grain
supply. Later there were further declarations from Mucianus the governor of
Syria and the Danubian legions whose revolt had been led by Antonius Primus.
Vespasian now held the potential for success, he had the support of the whole of
the east and the Balkans plus two of the three main army groups in the empire.
Vespasian then left for Antioch to deal with matters in Syria, instead of
advancing west he moved his headquarters to Alexandria in Egypt and promptly
cut off the grain supply to Rome. He then sent Mucianus with 20,000 men
to Asia to gather further support. This was a precarious action to take and
potentially damaging to the Flavian cause as it gave Vitellius time to regroup
and re-militarize. However the actions of Primus thwarted this for he ignored
any orders he may have received from Vespasian and crossed the Alps into the Po
Valley determined to attack the enemy while they were still in disarray. For the
second time in a few months the armies clashed at Cremona, and the Danubian
legions were victorious.
With the downfall of Vitellius the senior officers installed a provincial
114 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

government, headed by Vespasian’s younger son Domitian. The empire now had
a new emperor Vespasian, just as Josephus had prophesised. News of the Flavian
victory in Rome did not reach Vespasian and Titus until the end of the year;
Vespasian held court at Alexandria through the early months of ad 70 and then
set sail for Rome. Before his departure he appointed Titus the new commander
in Judaea with orders to capture Jerusalem and have the war finished by the
summer. Titus was now in command of the largest army in the empire, and it was
vital for the security of the Flavian dynasty he achieved a quick and resounding
military victory. As one scholar remarks:

The energy and disregard for the unnecessary loss of life among his own soldiers with
which Titus prosecuted the siege of Jerusalem in ad 70 was entirely due to Vespasian’s
need to win a famous victory to justify his seizure of power, without that factor Roman
hostilities against Judaea might have been as lackadaisical as those against Civilis on the
Rhine.12

The battle for Jerusalem was now imminent and for the Jews their long-awaited
apocalypse to herald the new age was about to begin with a vengeance.
 12

The Battle for Jerusalem

Smite the nations, Thine adversaries, and devour the flesh of the sinner with Thy
sword! (War Scroll DSS Qumran)

As a prior necessity to any attack upon Jerusalem, the areas that were held by the
rebel leader Simon b. Giora had to be recovered and garrisoned by the Romans.
These areas comprised north-east Judaea and Idumenaea. Once this had been
achieved this left only the three fortresses of Herodium, Masada and Machaerus,
plus a few pockets of resistance in the caves overlooking the Dead Sea, these were
of little military consequence to Vespasian who chose to ignore them.
However, the Judaean campaigns had been halted early in July ad 69 when
Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by his legions in the east and the Jewish war
was put on hold. Vespasian and Titus went first to Beriut for a council of war,
and it was here Josephus was finally released from his chains as a reward for
the fulfilment of his prophecy, and became a useful ally to the emperor and his
son. They then left for Egypt to secure the corn supply, so it was not until the
spring of ad 70 action in Judaea was finally resumed; Vespasian transferred the
Jewish command to his son Titus, while he returned to Rome to take up his now
seemingly assured position of emperor.
In the early spring of that year Titus marched his army from the Nile Delta,
along the north coast of Sinai and up the Levantine coast past Gaza, Ascalon,
Jamnia and Joppa to arrive at Caesarea. He concentrated his main force here
before beginning any further advances into Judaea. The Roman forces in Judaea
now comprised four legions, the original V Macedonia, X Fretensis and XV
Apollinaris and added to these numbers was the XII Fulminata from Syria, Titus
also brought with him 2,000 men from the Egyptian legions, III Cyrenaica and
XXII Deiotariana. The number of auxiliary units remained unchanged, but the
client kings increased their contingents with Agrippa and Sohaemus personally
leading their own troops. Tacitus tells us added to these numbers were:

Strong levies of Arabs, who felt for the Jews hatred, common between neighbours, and
many individual adventurers from Rome and Italy, who for various reasons hoped to
ingratiate themselves with the emperor whose ear might be gained.1
116 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Tacitus also mentions 20 cohorts and eight alae and distinguishes between
Agrippa and Sohaemus who contributed personally, and the forces of Antiochos
and the Nabataeans, Agrippa had returned from Rome on hearing of Vespasian’s
proclamation as emperor. However, Josephus does not mention he was present
at the fall of Jerusalem.
Tiberius Julius Alexander, the prefect of Egypt had been the first provincial
governor to declare his allegiance for Vespasian and he now joined Titus’ staff,
which also included a new procurator of Judaea, M. Antonius Julianus. Josephus
was amongst those who marched with the legions, now a free man and trusted by
the emperor and his son. He was to act as a consultant on Jewish affairs, as well
as translator and emissary. He describes the march of April ad 70:

Titus advanced into enemy country behind an advance guard formed of the royal troops
and all the allied contingents. Next came the pioneers [road makers] and camp builders,
then the officers’ baggage train: behind the troops protecting these came the commander-
in-chief escorted by lancers and other picked troops and followed by legionary cavalry.
These were succeeded by engines, and these by tribunes and prefects of the cohorts with
a picked escort; after them and surrounding the eagle came the ensigns preceded by their
trumpeters and behind them the solid column six abreast. The servants attached to each
legion followed in a body, preceded by the baggage train. Last of all the mercenaries with
a rear guard to keep watch on them.2

The two legions were encamped some miles behind, near the Jewish village of
Gabath Saul. Because of the difficulty of maintaining supply lines in the Judaean
hill country due to constant threat of guerrilla attacks Titus sent the other two
legions in opposite directions, the V via Emmaeus and the X via Jericho. The
following morning 23 April ad 70, a contingent of the Roman army appeared on
the hills to the north of Jerusalem. It comprised a large body of cavalry over 500
strong sent out in advance to reconnoitre the area, and led by Titus himself.
The city of Jerusalem had been founded in the tenth century bc by King David,
and had been a strong fortress from that time onwards. With its expansion over
the centuries the city in the first century ad incorporated two spurs of land, on
the eastern side was Temple Mount with the Ophel Hill immediately to the south.
Overlooking Temple Mount was the Antonia fortress joining its north-west
corner.
The western spur was much longer, wider and higher and terminated at
Mount Zion. It was in this area the elite Upper City had developed during the
Hasmonean and Herodian periods. At the north-western edge stood the royal
palace, a strong fortress built by Herod the Great. In between the two spurs
ran the Tyropoeon Valley. By comparison the Lower City was much older and
accommodated the rest of the city’s population. On three sides of the city there
 T H E B AT T L E F O R J E R U S A L E M 117

were deep ravines, the Hinmom Valley to the west and south and the Kidron
Valley to the east between the Ophel Hill and Mount of Olives. The entire Upper
and Lower City was enclosed by the ‘First Wall’ but on the southern side, where
the city had continued its expansion, and incidentally where it was exposed to
attack, the defences had been strengthened by two further walls.
The Second Wall went from the Antonia fortress in the east to the Gennath
Gateway in the west. Its precise location is unknown but scholars believe it ran
somewhere close to the royal palace. The Third Wall enclosed a larger area to the
north where a new suburb known as the New City was under development on
the Bezetha Hill. Herod Agrippa I had commissioned the building of the wall
in ad 41–44 and massive stone blocks had been used in its construction, but
because the Romans had become suspicious, Herod as client king and ally of
Rome, had to abandon the project. The revolutionaries put the final touches to
it and completed the wall. They raised its height to 9 metres (30 ft) at the level of
the battlemented walkway, placing on it a series of square towers that projected
from the wall at various intervals thereby giving a higher elevation.
This was the city that Titus viewed from the hills to the north. The city was
surrounded by parched and infertile land, all the major trade routes bypassed it
to the east, west and north. Its only real advantage was that the city was highly
defensible. Titus assembled his army near Jerusalem, where one of the legions, the
X Fretensis, established a base on the Mount of Olives, commanding the eastern
side of the city while the other three encamped on Mt Scopus.
Titus rode down from Mt Scopus towards the main gate through the Third
Wall. Before arriving at the gate he detoured to the right and made for the
Psephinus Tower a tall octagonal building guarding the north-west corner of the
Third Wall. His actions seem rather strange for he was approaching very close to
the enemy with no military support. Not only that, the terrain was difficult for in
many places it sloped steeply and was uneven. Also there were many ditches, walls
and paths, surrounding gardens, orchards and olive trees. Not the most accessible
of places, especially for cavalry who would be slowed down considerably as their
horses tried to negotiate the rough terrain.
The approach of the Roman army now united the revolutionary factions in
one common cause. The battleground was ideal for them, as in addition to the
fortifications and difficult ground, the built up part of the city was a maze of
narrow streets and alleys, and underground there were a series of water and sewer
tunnels, which meant that sorties could emerge from any direction and take
the Romans completely by surprise. The Jews organized themselves into small
guerrilla units of about 200 to 500 men, and without the encumbrances of heavy
armour they were able to move quickly and effectively unlike their armoured
opponents. They were basically armed with javelins, slings and stones, but some
were also equipped with swords, daggers and spears for close combat.
118 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

A small Jewish force made the first charge at Titus not long after he left the
road and succeeded in cutting the Roman column in two. The Romans who had
not yet left the road took flight leaving Titus and the rest cut off in the maze of
orchards and gardens. Titus led a charge through a hail of missiles unleashed
by the Jewish forces, and was very lucky to escape unscathed. Josephus tells us
Titus had gone to reconnoitre and not to engage in a fight and had left himself
vulnerable, as he wore neither helmet nor cuirass. The Jews: ‘Thus successful at
their first onset were elated with inconsiderate hopes and this transient turn of
fortune afforded them high confidence as to the future’.3
The next day the rest of the army came to join Titus’ force and work began
immediately on the erection of three Roman camps, one for the XII and XV on
Mt Scopus, three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) to the north-east of the city, another
camp for the V a short way behind this and the last camp housed the X on the
Mount of Olives, about three quarters of a mile east of the city on the far side of
the Kidron Valley. However, the Romans had not given enough thought to their
plan, for the Jewish commanders from the city walls could observe them and
get some idea of their strategy. Simon b. Giora had been responsible for the first
attack as he and his militia controlled the Third Wall. Now with the Roman army
building camps: ‘The mutual dissension of the factions within the town, hitherto
incessantly at strife, was checked by the war from without.’4
And the two rival factions united their forces for a large-scale sortie on the X
legion encamped on the Mount of Olives. While the legion was busy encamping
the Jews made a sudden and surprise attack. The Jewish force came out of the
eastern and southern gateways of the city and swept across the Kidron Valley,
storming up the opposite slope of the Mount of Olives and fell upon the Romans
while they were still engaged building their fortifications.

They [Romans] were therefore taken by surprise and thrown into disorder. Abandoning
their work, some instantly retreated, while many rushing for their arms were struck
down before they could round upon the foe. The Jews meanwhile were continually being
re-enforced by others who were encouraged by the success of the first party, and with
fortune favouring them seemed both to themselves and to the enemy far in excess of
their actual numbers. Moreover men habituated to discipline and proficient in fighting
in ordered ranks and by word of command, when suddenly confronted with disorderly
warfare, are peculiarly liable to be thrown into confusion.5

The Romans made a stand but were overwhelmed by Jewish numbers and finally
driven from their camp.
Titus immediately brought in reinforcements from Mt Scopus and rallied the
legionaries. He then led a counter attack, which succeeded in driving the Jews
back down the slope. The Jews retreated down the east side of the valley then
 T H E B AT T L E F O R J E R U S A L E M 119

made a stand on the western slope beneath the walls of the city. Here the Jews
were safe, for the Romans would have had to pursue them uphill over broken
ground risking attack by missiles from the walls above. There was now a stand-
off until noon, when Titus thinned out the line facing the Jews across the valley
and sent some of the legionaries back up the slope to resume work on the camp.
Look-outs posted on the city wall signalled to fresh forces of Jewish fighters
waiting at the gates and a second wave of Jewish fighters surged out to attack the
weakened Romans. The Romans panicked and fled without even putting up a
fight, so did the legionaries working on the camp the moment they saw the Jews
crossing the valley and climbing up the slope.
Titus was isolated with only a few soldiers at his command and found himself
in great danger. As Josephus notes this could have been the reason the officers on
the ridge were now forced to rally the legionaries organizing a counter attack. The
re-formed units now charged down the slope, and the Jews once again ran for
safety on the far side of the valley. Titus now re-established his defensive line at
full strength, so that the camp building could resume. From now on the Romans
would be forced to post strong forces of cavalry and foot soldiers to prevent any
further interruptions from Jewish sorties of this kind.
During the temporary lull in hostilities Josephus reports faction fighting once
again broke out within the city. It was the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Eleazar
gave orders to open the gates to admit those who wished to come and worship.
John took advantage of this:

Armed with concealed weapons the less conspicuous of his [John’s] followers, most of
whom were unspecified, and by his earnest endeavours got them stealthily passed into
the temple to take possession of it. Once within they cast off their garments and were
revealed as armed men.6

Wholesale panic ensued, as visitors to the Temple believed it was they who were
being attacked and ran for shelter. The Zealots also not wishing to engage the
intruders took refuge in the Temple vaults.

Many peaceable citizens from enmity and personal spite were slain by their adversaries
as partisans of the opposite faction, and any in the past who had offended one of the
conspirators, being now recognised as a zealot was led off for punishment.7

John defeated Eleazar and they forced him into a truce, he had to accept John’s
leadership against the common enemies of Rome and Simon b. Giora; the three
rival factions were now reduced to two.
For the Romans it was imperative the ground between their camps and the
city was cleared of trees, hedges and fences, also ditches needed to be filled as
120 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

well as rocks cleared to afford them a more level battle ground. This would also
help render the guerrilla tactics less potent should the rebels decide to mount
further sorties from the city.
However, the Jews were not so easily dismissed and they devised a further
plan to catch the Romans off guard. A group of Jews came out from the towers
along the northern side of the Third Wall and huddled together there as if in
great fear of their lives. Others shouted from the battlements calling for peace
and offering to open the gates, while at the same time pelting with stones those
who were huddled by the wall. The ruse was designed to make the Romans
believe the defenders had dispelled the majority of the war party from the city.
A contingent of armed Jews was waiting behind the wall ready for the Romans
should they fall for the trick.
Titus believed the peace party was in the majority and the previous day sent
Josephus as his emissary to negotiate surrender. ‘Josephus during his exhortation
was derided by many from the ramparts, by many execrated, and by some assailed
with missiles.’8
Josephus says Titus was suspicious of this action but many of his men were
not and charged down to the gates expecting the Jews to surrender. They were
received by a hail of missiles from the men in the front of the wall, and on the
battlements; the party waiting behind the wall now surged forward and attacked
them on both flanks. Fierce fighting ensued for some time until eventually the
Romans managed to retreat back to their own lines. Titus was angry with his men
for having broken the lines and rushing to the city without receiving orders to do
so. Once again Titus had underestimated the ingenuity of the Jews.
The Roman army now completed the task of levelling the ground, but it was
clear from the abortive negotiations and intelligence gathering that Jerusalem
would be well defended and the task ahead would prove to be a difficult one.
Titus was under orders from Vespasian to effect a quick and glorious victory to
help establish the new Flavian dynasty in Rome, so a lengthy blockade was not
really a viable option. It appears Titus chose the strategy of terror and treachery
to achieve this end. Josephus was sent repeatedly by Titus to negotiate but was
constantly met with a hail of abuse, his fellow Jews considered him little more
than a traitor.
To approach the main defences of the city was a difficult task. First it was
essential to mount an attack on both the Second and Third walls. The deep
ravines of the Kidron and Himnom valleys made the possibility of a direct assault
on the First Wall untenable. Only from the north where the ground was fairly
even could any successful assault be contemplated. The Third Wall was also very
strong along the majority of its length but there were places where it was weak,
especially along the newly developed area of the New City. Titus’ plan was to use
ramps and battering rams to assail the wall.
 T H E B AT T L E F O R J E R U S A L E M 121

Titus found such a weak spot in the wall somewhere near the Psephinus tower
and the western gate, and redeployed his troops. He left the X encamped on the
Mount of Olives and moved the other legions to two new camps about a quarter
of a mile from the city, the V opposite the western gate, the XII and XV opposite
the Psephinus tower. Once the baggage train had been successfully brought
through by employing a line of men outside the north-western part of the city to
prevent any Jewish skirmishes, work began on three earth and timber ramps.
The Romans erected wicker hurdles to protect themselves from missile attack
and archers and artillery were also brought in to assist. Although there were a
few sorties carried out by Simon b. Giora’s men, the work progressed quickly. As
soon as the distance between the wall and ramps was sufficient Titus ordered the
advance. Artillery was moved closer to provide covering fire while the battering
rams slowly moved up the ramps and into position, then he gave the order to
strike. ‘Suddenly from three different quarters a terrific din echoed round the
city, a cry went up from the citizens within, and the rebels themselves were
seized with a like alarm.’9
The rival factions united in their common cause and they joined forces on
the battlements to rain down missiles on the Romans. Josephus gives a graphic
description of the fighting that followed. Some of the braver Jewish fighters
climbed on to the roofs of the rams tearing off the hurdles and pelting the soldiers
with missiles. Firebrands were hurled from the battlements to set the engines
alight and the Roman archers also came under fire.

They hurled from them [the ramparts] firebrands at the machines and kept those who
were impelling the battering engines under constant fire. The more venturesome dashed
out in bands, tore up the hurdles, and falling upon the gunners, seldom through skill,
but generally through intrepidity, got the better of them.10

During a lull in the fighting men from the western gate launched a surprise
attack. This took the weary Roman troops off guard coming as it did from an
unexpected direction. The Jews managed to get in among the engines equipped
with firebrands. Some legionaries stood their ground while Titus counter attacked
with his cavalry and drove the Jews back to the city before they had chance to do
any serious damage to the engines. There were a few Jewish casualties and one
man was captured; as an example to the others Titus had him crucified in front
of the city walls. Also after the retreat John, the Idumaean leader, was killed by
an Arab bowman as he was talking to an acquaintance in the ranks. His death
came as a great blow to the Jewish forces.
The attack on the wall had lasted for about a week and by that time the
Romans had mounted an iron plated wooden tower over 20 metres (65 ft) high
on each of the three platforms, which made them too heavy to be overthrown
122 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

by any Jewish sortie that might occur, of course it also rendered them virtually
fireproof. The largest of the Roman rams was nicknamed Victor and on 7 May
it finally punched a breech through the Third Wall forcing the defenders to take
cover behind the Second Wall. This allowed the Romans to storm into the city
and open the gates to the rest of the army. A section of the Third Wall was levelled
and the Romans now occupied part of the New City, building a new camp in the
north-western corner in the area known as the ‘Camp of the Assyrians’.
The second assault began almost immediately and after four days one of
the rams brought down the middle tower of the north wall creating a breech
affording Titus the opportunity to deploy more than 1,000 legionaries into the
suburb. There was a lull in proceedings and Titus’ men were ordered not to
plunder, while terms of surrender were once again offered to the rebels.
Titus then left behind a small garrison to hold the towers on the Second Wall
and to defend the area beyond the breech. It appears many of the defenders
had gone to ground and now they came from the gateways and infiltrated and
surrounded the Roman position. As is usual in guerrilla warfare the Jews struck
when the Romans dropped their guard. They assailed the Romans with missiles
from the roofs and doorways with a constant stream of hit and run manoeuvres.
The Romans formed tight blocks behind their shields and managed to make
their way back to the breach, however they were now pinned down by the enemy.
The garrison on the Second Wall also fled in confusion. The Jews moved up to
the breach, only a narrow gap at the top of a heap of rubble, which allowed a
few legionaries to pass through at a time, they also were assailed by a range of
missiles from the Jews, it was only the arrival of a contingent of archers to provide
covering fire that enabled the Romans to escape. The Jews then surged back on
to the Second Wall and barricaded the breach, managing to hold it for three days
against further Roman onslaught. However, on the fourth day the Romans broke
back again and the Jews were forced to withdraw. This time Titus pulled down the
whole of the northern section of the Second Wall and posted stronger garrisons
in the remaining towers.
The fighting continued for almost two weeks; the battle for the Second Wall
had proven to be particularly severe. Titus now suspended the siege for four
days during which time he hoped the rebels would reflect on their situation and
consider surrender. He also, as it was the legionaries’ pay-day:

Ordered his officers to parade the forces and count out the money to each man in full
view of the enemy. So the troops as it was their custom, drew forth their arms from the
cases in which ’til now that had been covered and advanced clad in mail, the cavalry
leading their horses which were richly caparisoned. The area in front of the city gleamed
far and wide with silver and gold, and nothing was more gratifying to the Romans, or
more awe inspiring to the enemy, than that spectacle.11
 T H E B AT T L E F O R J E R U S A L E M 123

Once again Josephus was sent to negotiate, he implored them to ‘spare their
country and their Temple and not to display toward them greater indifference
that was shown by the foreigners’.12
Once again his pleas were met with a hail of missiles and the customary
abuse. The Jews were now massed on the northern fortifications. John’s militia
with the Zealots held Temple Mount and the Antonia fortress at the eastern
end. The Temple platform rose to a height of 45 metres (150 ft) above ground
level and on top of this around the outer edge of the sanctuary ran a 12-metre
(40-ft) high colonnade. Jewish defenders were deployed on the north and west
colonnade. The Antonia fortress on the southern side was connected to the
Temple colonnades by a series of access stairways.
Simon b. Giora’s militia held the First Wall, which ran all the way through the
city to the royal palace. There were three towers at the north-west corner, built
of marble and rising to 40 metres high, surmounted by battlemented turrets and
ramparts. The whole of the northern line stretched for 1,200 metres (4,000 ft)
and was manned by 20 men for every metre; therefore the Jews had every reason
to feel confident in their defence of the First Wall.
The key to taking the city was the Antonia fortress, and this was where Titus
launched his campaign. He divided the four legions into two groups. The V and
the XII to attack the fortress and the X and the XV to attack the First Wall. They
began to build ramps, at the Antonia fortress they were positioned 10 metres (30
ft) apart and at the First Wall, 15 metres (50 ft). Immediately the Jews assailed
them with a hail of missiles but despite their attempts to disrupt the work the
ramps were finally completed on 29 May.
The Jews had no option but to wait for the attack. However, they had not
been completely idle during this time, for John and his militia had been busily
digging a mine from one of the tunnels that ran beneath the Temple platform.
They excavated beneath the Antonia platform in order to run beneath the Roman
platform. When the excavation was completed they would fire the props so to
bring down the roof of the tunnel and consequently anything that was above it,
hopefully the ramp. The Roman battering rams were already in place when the
Jews fired the faggots coated in pitch and bitumen:

The props being consumed, the mine collapsed in a heap, and with a tremendous crash
the earthworks fell in. At first dense volumes of smoke arose with clouds of dust, the
fire being smothered by the debris, but as the materials which crushed it were eaten
away, a vivid flame now burst forth. The Romans were in consternation at this sudden
catastrophe and dispirited by the enemy’s ingenuity; moreover, coming at the moment
when they imagined victory within their grasp.13

Three days later Simon launched a similar attack on the Roman ramps occupying
124 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

the First Wall. Three fighters were sent out by Simon; they were Tephthaeus a
Galilean, Megassarus a former royal servant and Ceagiras a disabled man from
Adiabene.

No bolder men than these three sallied out from the town throughout the war or
inspired greater terror; for, as though racing for friendly ranks and not into a mass of
enemies, they neither slackened or turned aside, but, plunging through the midst of the
foe, set light to the machines. Assailed by shots and sword thrusts from every quarter,
nothing could move them from the field of danger until the fire had caught hold of the
engines.14

The attack was successful, and immediately both Jewish and Roman reinforcements
rallied to the scene. The Jews won the day for the fires were soon raging out of
control consuming the rams as well as the platform. The Jews now flushed with
success rushed from the gates and attacked the Roman lines, eventually the
Romans were forced to fall back through the narrow streets of the northern part
of the city; gradually they were forced back to their camp. The guards on duty
there were under strict orders to defend the camp otherwise they faced the death
penalty. They held their ground with the aid of bolt shooters who had hastily
been lifted on to the rampart, and managed to halt the Jewish onslaught. Titus
arrived and improvised a counter attack on the right flank of the Jewish forces.
The battle was a messy affair with the Jewish fighters being blinded by dust,
finally they retreated behind the First Wall. It had taken the Jews only two days
to destroy what had taken more than two weeks to build.
This incident had a demoralizing effect upon the Romans. They had already
stripped the surrounding countryside of all available timber and even if fresh
supplies could be brought in to make more platforms there was no guarantee
the same situation would not arise again. Titus convened a council of war, where
some argued for a full-scale assault by the entire army. Others argued for a
starvation campaign to be levelled at the inhabitants of the city. Neither of these
arguments was feasible for a variety of logistical reasons and it seemed the only
recourse open to the Romans was to rebuild the platforms. It was paramount
everything possible was done to limit Jewish activities, and this could only be
achieved by privation and terror tactics.
 13

The Final Conflict

Behold the beauty of what you are betraying; what a city!

What a Temple! What countless nations gifts! (JW 5:417)

Titus ordered a wall of circumvallation to be built around the whole of the city
of Jerusalem. The wall was nearly 5 miles (8 km) in length and began and ended
on the Bezetha Hill. Josephus says it was completed in only three days, and was
strengthened by 13 forts, which were no doubt manned by the auxiliary troops.
This blockade took immediate effect on the population whose ranks had
been swelled by large numbers of pilgrims arriving for the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. It is estimated there may have been about a quarter of a million people in
the city, all of whom had now to be fed. There were five possible sources of food
supply available, the large warehouses on or beneath Temple Mount that housed
the tithe and first fruit offerings; the stocks of grain the rebels had stockpiled
before the siege began; private supplies of grain perhaps belonging to aristocrats
or merchants; food smuggled into the city; and as Josephus says, any food that
could be foraged from the immediate vicinity of the city. The Romans obviously
had to limit the foraging and smuggling while at the same time put pressure on
the use of those supplies held within the city.
There was not a completely tight seal around the city, many people, mainly
aristocrats, were able to leave and seek refuge with the Romans. For their part the
Romans saw them as potential allies for the future and welcomed them, however,
lower-class people were not viewed in a similar vein and were subject to death
or torture if they were caught fleeing. It is quite possible many thousands were
crucified, a gory sight for those who watched from the walls of the city.
The defenders now faced famine; Josephus recounts a horrific story about
a mother, who unable to find enough food, killed her own baby and roasted
him, eating one half and offering the other half to a passing requisition squad.
How reliable this story is we can only guess, nevertheless it is certain as the
famine began to kill large numbers of people, such unspeakable acts were not
uncommon.
At the beginning of the famine normal burial practices were enforced, paid
for by the authorities but as the death toll mounted people became too weak to
bury their dead. Bodies were dumped outside the city gates or flung from the
126 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

walls, and here they remained for the rest of the siege, giving rise to infection and
disease, which also took its toll on the population.
Famine and disease gave rise to fresh outbursts of dissension and there were
numerous defections to the Roman camp. Simon, in an attempt to curb this
exodus now unleashed a fresh wave of terror. The High Priest Matthias, who had
incidentally originally welcomed Simon to the city, was arrested and charged
with treason, along with his three sons. They were all executed and their bodies
thrown over the wall.

When Matthias entreated that he might be slain before his children, begging this favour
in return for his having opened the gates to him Simon, ordered that he should be slain
last. He was accordingly butchered over the bodies of his sons, who had been slaughtered
before his eyes, after having been led out in view of the Romans . . . Moreover he refused
burial to the bodies.1

This was followed by the execution of two other members of the priestly class,
Ananias and Aristeus, and 15 members of the aristocracy. However, there was
further dissension amongst Simon’s own men. An officer of his contingent
guarding one of the towers with ten of his men attempted to defect to the Romans
and were summarily executed. This action by Simon effectively stopped the
threat of betrayal and mutiny and the peace party no longer became a threat to
the revolutionary movement.
The Romans spent the following month working on the siege engines. No
doubt Titus hoped the famine, disease, mutinies, crucifixions, and constant
calls for surrender would wear down the opposition, especially as the Romans
were well fed and continually taunted the starving population of Jerusalem with
displays of food supplies. Knowing the tenacity of Jewish fighters Titus still had to
make preparations for an assault, and concentrated all his efforts on the Antonia
fortress. He sent his men as far as possible throughout Judaea to cut down trees
until the whole area was a barren wasteland. With the new supply of timber they
constructed four new platforms in 21 days. Josephus tells us about the mood that
prevailed in both camps when the work had been completed.

The completion of the earthworks proved, to the Romans no less than the Jews, a source
of apprehension. For while the latter thought that, should they fail to burn these also,
the city would be taken, the Romans feared that they would never take it, should these
embankments too be destroyed. For there was a dearth of materials and the soldiers
bodies were stinking beneath their toils and their minds under a succession of reverses.
Indeed the calamities of the city caused more despondency to the Romans than to the
citizens, for they found their opponents in no wise chastened by their severe misfortunes,
while their own hopes were continually dashed, their earthworks mastered by the
 THE FINAL CONFLICT 127

enemies stratagems, their engines by the solidity of their walls their close combat by
the daring of their antagonists. But worst of all was that the Jews possessed a fortitude
of soul that could surmount faction, famine, war and such a host of calamities. They
fancied the impetuosity of these men and their cheerfulness in distress invincible; for
what would they not endure if favoured by fortune, who were impelled to valour by
disasters? For these reasons then, the Romans strengthened yet more their guard upon
the earthworks.2

In total the siege had been underway for ten weeks. The rebels had made a brave
effort despite being in a weakened state. John and his party within the Antonia
fortress, sallied out to attack the siege engines.

Having advanced with torches returned with ardent hopes grown cold ere they had
approached the earthworks. For to begin with there seemed to be no unanimity in their
design; they dashed out in small parties, at intervals, hesitatingly and in alarm, in short
not like Jews.3

The Jews were defeated and made a retreat, the Romans now began to make an
assault upon the wall using the battering rams with crowbars to lever out the
stones at the base; the operation took all day and by the end of it all they had
managed to accomplish was to dislodge four stones. All through the operation
they were assailed by stones, firebrands and anything else the Jews could rain
down on them from the walls above. It seemed like an impossible task but the
weight on the engines plus the constant pounding caused the tunnel, originally
excavated by John and his mining party in May, to collapse bringing down the
whole of the northern wall of the Antonia.
Both sides were shocked by what happened. The Romans now faced yet
another problem, for, anticipating the wall would fall, John and his men had
built a roughly constructed second wall. In front of it was the heap of rubble
from the collapsed first wall, and on either side the corner towers of the Antonia
still commanded the approaches. It would be no easy task to storm the fortress,
in fact little more than a suicide mission, so Titus called his best men and asked
for volunteers.
Only 12 responded to Titus’ request. A Syrian auxiliary called Sabinus led
them and they launched a ferocious commando-style raid, which took the Jews
by surprise. Although on their approach missiles hit several of his men, they
succeeded in climbing the wall and scattering the defenders in front of them.
However, it was a foolhardy venture, as they were few in number and had no
back-up support; Sabinus tripped and fell, dying under a hail of missiles; of the
remaining men three were battered to death by stones and their comrades carried
the remainder, who had been wounded in front of the wall, back to the camp.
128 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

An alternative plan was to attempt a night-time assault Two days later in the
early hours of 5 July, 20 infantry on guard duty manning the platforms plus a
standard bearer, a trumpeter and two cavalry men, crept forward and climbed
into the ruins of the Antonia. They found the Jewish sentries asleep, killed
them and mounted the walls. The trumpeter sounded a signal summoning
reinforcements, the shock of which caused the remaining Jewish sentries to flee
for their lives.
Titus and his officers with a contingent of picked men rode into the ruins to
consolidate the victory. The majority of the Jewish opposition had fled towards
the Temple and the Romans now took the opportunity to follow them along the
tunnels that had been used previously by John and his militia. John and Simon’s
militia joined forces and now made a stand to block the Roman advance; fighting
ensued in the narrow tunnel entrances that lasted for several hours; the Romans
were better equipped for close combat fighting being armoured unlike the
majority of Jewish fighters. However, because of the narrowness of the tunnels
the Roman were unable to call on support in order to mount a mass charge at the
enemy. On the other hand the Jews had huge reserves of men backed up across
the concourse and so were able to keep the Romans penned in at the entrances.
At one point a centurion from Bithynia named Julian, who was apparently
exceedingly strong, launched himself at the Jewish line scattering the men who
stood in front of him. However, his hobnail boots caused him to slip on the
pavement and he was immediately set upon:

The Jews crowded round him on all sides and struck at him with spears and swords.
Many a weapon he parried with his buckler, many a time he tried to rise but was thrown
back by the number of his assailants, and prostrate though he was, many a one did he
stab with his sword; for being protected in every vital part by helmet and cuirass and
drawing in his neck, he was not quickly despatched. At length when all his limbs were
hacked and no comrade ventured to his aid he succumbed.4

It would appear the Romans’ planned attempt on Temple Mount was doomed
to failure and consequently the Roman contingent was ordered to pull back.
There was a lull in the proceedings; then Titus ordered the walls of the Antonia
to be demolished to create a breach through which the Roman army could storm
Temple Mount. Josephus was sent once again to appeal to the Jews to surrender
and encourage them to abandon the rebel cause.

Josephus standing so that his words might reach the ears not only of John but also of the
multitude delivered Caesar’s message in Hebrew with earnest appeals to them to ‘spare
their country, to disperse the flames that were already licking the sanctuary and to restore
to God the expiatory sacrifices’. His words were received by the people in dejection and
 THE FINAL CONFLICT 129

silence; but the tyrant after many invectives and imprecations upon Josephus ended by
saying that he could ‘never fear capture, since the city was God’s’.5

It would be feasible to suggest that the speech was delivered in Aramaic rather
than Hebrew.
On 17 July the Romans prepared for a final assault on the Temple. The priests
had been forced to suspend the daily sacrifice because supplies of lamb had run
out, and this was seen by many Jews as an omen of impending disaster.6 Quite a
number of the High Priestly families had deserted to the Romans, as well as many
aristocrats, it seemed only the militia men remained unswerving to the cause.
Titus employed different tactics for this assault. He took 30 of his best
men from each century and employed them in the line, grouping the men in
1,000-strong cohorts, commanded by tribunes. Sextus Cerealis commander
of the V legion led the attack. Titus and other senior officers watched from
an observation post situated in one of the towers on the Antonia. During the
early hours of the morning the legionaries, comprising in all roughly 7,000
men, advanced slowly hoping to find the Jewish sentries asleep. The sentries,
however, were not asleep and raised the alarm, bringing the militiamen out to
form defensive lines. The front ranks came to halt and the army concertinaed on
itself, the ranks behind stumbling in the darkness. The result was, in confusion,
Roman turned upon Roman. However, the same thing happened on the Jewish
side whose line was also in a shambles, being badly organized the men collided
into each other in the darkness. When it became light:

Parting into their respective lines, they could employ their missiles and maintain their
defence in good order. Neither did either side give way or relax their efforts. The Romans
as under the eye of Caesar, vied man with man and company with company, each
believing that the day would lead to his promotion, if he but fought with gallantry. The
Jews had an arbiter of their own daring deeds their fear for themselves and their Temple
and the looming presence of the tyrant, encouraging some, rousing others by the lash
and by menaces into action, the contest was perforce for the most part stationary the
manoeuvres to and fro; being limited to a narrow space and quickly over; for neither
side had room for fight or pursuit. And at every incident of the fight an appropriate roar
went up from Antonia; were their comrades gaining they shouted back to them to be
of good cheer, were they falling back, to stand fast. It was like a battle on the stage, for
nothing throughout the engagement escaped the eyes of Titus or of those around him.
At length after an action which had opened at the ninth hour of the night, they broke
off at the fifth hour of the day, neither side having seriously repelled their adversaries
from the very spot on which the conflict began, and victory remaining undecided in
this drawn battle.7
130 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

The Romans were unable to break through probably because the front was too
narrow not allowing a strong enough force to engage the enemy at one attempt.
We must also assume the Romans came under missile attack from the colonnade
rooftops. Failing to effect a breakthrough they found themselves in a tactical
impasse, and so at noon the commander called off the attack.
The Romans were massed near the ruins of the Antonia, the Jews on the northern
side of the inner court of the Temple. The Jewish resistance was relentless; there was
a raid to capture Roman horses left to graze by cavalrymen and a large-scale attack
on Roman outposts on the Mount of Olives. The rebels also set about strengthening
their defences on Temple Mount destroying a large section of the northern and
western colonnades where they joined with the ruins of the Antonia making
a gap of about 10 metres (30 ft) between theirs and the Roman positions.
On 27 July they also managed to set a successful trap for the Romans who
were at work on a platform against the western colonnade. The northern extent
of the colonnade had been almost completely destroyed by the Romans and they
were now busy raising a platform near the broken end. The Jews secretly filled
the space between the rafters and the ceiling with dry wood, bitumen and pitch, a
highly flammable combination. They then feigned a show of leaving this section
of the colonnade; the Romans saw an opportunity to mount an assault and ran
forward with ladders. Hundreds of them reached the top of the undefended wall
and climbed on to the roof of the colonnade, whereupon the Jews ignited their
fire trap and engulfed them in the flames.

The flames suddenly shooting up on every side, those of the Romans who were out
of danger were seized with dire consternation, while those involved in it were utterly
helpless. Surrounded by the flames, some precipitated themselves into the city behind
them, some into the enemy’s midst; many in the hope of saving themselves leapt down
among their friends and fractured their limbs; but most in their rush to escape were
caught by the fire.8

The whole colonnade from the north-west corner as far as the western gate was
destroyed. Titus now ordered a fresh assault on Temple Mount. It was early
August, the height of summer, and for several days the battering rams pounded at
the walls using a specially constructed giant ram while working parties attempted
to lever stones from the base of the walls with crowbars. The rams made no
impression on the massive blocks of stone; the men working on the base had
little success either. The breaching of the walls was abandoned and Titus ordered
them to attempt to scale the walls instead; an action that would result in heavy
casualties for the Romans, so an obvious act of desperation on their part.
As the men began to scale the walls their ladders were pushed away by the
defenders. The Romans employed covering fire from missile shooters to keep
 THE FINAL CONFLICT 131

most of the defenders away from the battlements, so the Jews waited until the
legionaries came on to the walkways and then assaulted them, some were pushed
backwards onto their comrades beneath; others were killed before they had
time to cover themselves with their shields. The assault was once again proving
a failure so Titus finally abandoned the attempt and ordered the gates and
colonnades to be fired.
For the next 24 hours the Romans worked at destroying the gates and
colonnades by fire, burning out the complete length of the northern colonnade
right up to the north-east corner of Temple Mount. They then extinguished the
fires so the engineers could clear the debris and make a smooth pathway for
further assaults.
The Jewish position was now untenable, without the colonnades they could
only man the walkways with a single line of men who had no access for a retreat
as there was a sharp drop behind them, so they were forced to re-form their line
across the middle of the sanctuary. The left side was anchored on the western gate
linked with the Upper City by a bridge that spanned the Tyropoeon Valley and
defended by a tower. The right rested on the eastern colonnade of the sanctuary,
while the centre ran through the Temple and Inner Court.
A large balustrade ran around the outside of the Inner Court and inside
this was a high, stepped, rectangular podium surrounded by a massive stone
wall. There were four gateways on the northern and southern sides and an even
more splendid one on the eastern side aligned to the entrance of the Temple.
Colonnades and chambers ran round the inside of the wall providing a wide
roof for fighting platforms about 20 metres (65 ft) higher than the surrounding
sanctuary concourse. The eastern section formed the Court of Women, the
western section was elevated above this on a second podium and beyond the
Corinthian gate which passed through the middle of the wall was the Court of
Israelites and beyond this the Court of Priests. Beyond the altar raised on a third
platform was the Temple. It stood about 45 metres (150 ft) with a white marble
and gold front façade. There was a covered entrance porch, which gave access to
a pair of enormous golden gates and beyond these concealed behind the curtains
was a Holy place where sacred objects were stored; at the furthest recess of the
complex, the Holy of Holies, a sparse undecorated room entered only once a
year by the High Priest.
The Jews now fell back against the advancing Roman forces, and took up
positions on the rooftops of the Inner Court and Temple. Amazingly they were
still able to manage to mount sorties despite their weakened state, and on 9 August
they sallied forth from the eastern gate. The Romans were surprised by the attack
but managed to hold their ground while Titus deployed a cavalry counter attack
into the Jewish mass. The battle raged for three hours until the Jews unable to
make any impression on the Roman lines retreated to the Inner Court. The
132 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

following day the Jews attacked the legionaries holding the Outer Court but an
incident brought disaster upon the rebels and initiated the beginning of the end. A
soldier managed to hurl a firebrand through the window of one of the chambers
of the Inner Court. The place immediately caught light and was soon full of thick
black smoke and flames. There was chaos as the rebels desperately tried to save
their holy place while at the same time beat off the Roman advance. The Roman
lines now surged forward and managed to break through into the Temple.
Josephus’ account of the incident may be a little suspect given he was the
official biographer of the Flavian emperors. He says that Titus argued against
an attack on the Temple but he also says he was present in the thick of the fight.
However, there is other evidence probably deriving from Tacitus that Titus
argued for the utter destruction of the Temple so to wipe out the religion of the
Jews and Christians once and for all.9
It has been suggested that the ambiguity in Josephus is suggestive of the
historian’s attempt to understand the contradictory actions of the Flavians, who
on the one hand seem intent to abolish permanently the cult of the Temple,
while on the other upheld the Jews’ right to observe their ancestral law. Any slight
hesitancy on Titus’ part may have be seen by Josephus that the Flavians were not
actually hostile to Jewish tradition.10
As more fires began to rage the Romans ploughed on massacring all who stood
in their way. John and Eleazar’s militia managed to fight their way through to
the southern gateways and fled across the Outer Court. Inside the Temple those
left used any means they could to defend themselves. Priests even tore down the
golden spikes that kept the birds off the roof and hurled them at the Romans,
while others with all hope lost threw themselves into the raging fires.

While the Temple blazed the victors plundered everything that fell in their way and
slaughtered wholesale all who were caught. No pity was shown for age, no reverence for
rank; children and greybeards, laity and priests alike were massacred; every class was
pursued and encompassed in the grasp of war, whether suppliants for mercy or offering
resistance.11

The siege was now transformed into total annihilation. The population of
Jerusalem was trapped within an area that covered roughly 1 square mile (2.6
square km). For nearly a month the Jews found themselves at the mercy of the
Romans. There were no rules, no code of conduct, what followed can only be
described as horrific with barbaric acts performed on militia and civilians alike,
no one young or old escaped Roman wrath and vengeance.
As for the Jews they had no recourse other than to believe God would deliver
them from this carnage. A would-be prophet told the people such a thing would
happen if they were to assemble at the Temple. A crowd of men, women and
 THE FINAL CONFLICT 133

children all unarmed massed on the roof of one of the outer colonnades. They
were spotted by the legionaries, who then set fire to the colonnade below. In
desperation some flung themselves to their death, others perished in the fire;
not one remained alive.
The Romans now set about plundering the Temple of its treasures. The Temple
was not only a religious place, but had also acted as a repository for the wealthy
who placed their money and valuables here for safekeeping as well as housing the
money given in offerings and of course the Temple tax. It also stored tithes and
other valuables dedicated to the Temple by vows of valuations.12
Titus had been in the thick of the battle and was cheered as the Roman
standards were brought forward. An ox, sheep and pig were sacrificed before
the eastern gate in contravention to Jewish religious susceptibilities while the
legionaries chanted ‘Imperator, Imperator’ in honour of their leader.
However, there was still a small pocket of resistance; Simon’s militia remained
firmly entrenched in the Upper City and John’s men, those who managed to
escape the fall of Temple Mount, joined them there. There were still many
thousands of rebel fighters left and they held some strong positions including the
royal palace, which occupied the highest peak. It was advantageous to both sides
to parley and they met on the viaduct, the bridge that spanned the Tyropoeon
Valley between the western gate of the sanctuary and the gymnasium on the
eastern slope of the Upper City.
Simon and John sought permission to pass through the Roman cordon with
their women and children and go into the wilderness. However, Titus would not
agree to this and offered them a choice between slavery or execution. In fairness
to Titus he had no other recourse, because to release them meant reinforcing the
opposition in the south, he had the main enemy force at his mercy and he needed
to secure the capitulation of Jerusalem and destroy the revolutionary movement
once and for all.

Thereupon Titus indignant that men in the position of captives should proffer proposals
to him as victors, ordered proclamation to be made them neither to desert nor to hope
for terms any longer, for he would spare none; but to fight with all their might and save
themselves as best they could, because all his actions henceforth would be governed by
the laws of war.13

The following day the war resumed. The Romans fired the greater part of the
Lower City clearing it of rebels within two days. Simon and John now turned
the royal palace into a citadel for those rebels who remained. They ordered the
public execution of two Roman prisoners, the first was killed and dragged around
the city; the second was about to be beheaded when he managed to escape back
to the Roman lines, where he was dismissed for having allowed himself to be
134 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

taken prisoner in the first place. Simon also had five Idumaean leaders arrested
and executed because they had been attempting to negotiate secretly with Titus.
The rebel leaders were sending a message to the Romans that there would be
surrender; this was to be a war to the death.
Once again the Romans were forced to begin building new platforms because
the royal palace was impossible to scale. On 20 August the four legions were set to
work in the Hinnom Valley and spent the next two and a half weeks constructing
the platforms against the western palace wall. At the same time auxiliary troops
were constructing platforms near the viaduct, gymnasium and Simon’s tower.
The work was slowed down by missile attacks from the Jews but they were slowly
getting weaker as the famine continued to take its toll, therefore the attacks
became less effective. Many now deserted the rebel ranks. A group of aristocrats
surrendered and were detained, later they would be sent to Rome as hostages.
Those citizens who defected were judged by a military assize and freed if they
were found to be ‘respectable’. Presumably this meant those wealthy enough to
purchase a free passage.
We are told about some who managed to bribe their way to freedom, including
a former Temple treasurer, a priest called Jesus who negotiated his safe passage by
smuggling out a hoard of Temple treasure. However, the majority who defected
were not in a position to offer any such inducements and consequently they
were enslaved.
Several interesting points have been made when considering the role of the
aristocracy in the rebellion. Despite what Josephus has to say about the war being
mainly the work of the rebel militias there is ample evidence to show the ruling
class remained loyal to their cause, right up to the closing stages of the war. The
2,000 members of the ruling class who had been released from prison by the
Idumaeans in ad 69, apparently chose to remain and support the ‘free Jewish
state’. There were no physical restraints to stop them leaving at any point during
the siege. In fact Josephus’ brother and 50 of his friends were captured in the fall
of Jerusalem, all presumably members of the elite and all actively participating
in the fight against the Romans.14
On 7 September the platforms built against the royal palace were completed
and the rams brought into position. Some of the rebels abandoned the wall, and
those who remained fired at the Romans, however this was quickly suppressed.
Soon the rams brought down sections of the wall, and legionaries stormed
through the breaches virtually unhindered. The rebel leaders had taken refuge
in the three northern towers but they too were now abandoned without a fight.
They fled attempting to find a way round the Roman cordon, some even hid in
the sewers. The revolutionary army was now a disintegrating mass of frightened
stampeding men. The revolution was over and the inevitable sack of the city
about to begin.
 THE FINAL CONFLICT 135

The Romans now masters of the wall planted their standards on the towers, and with
clapping of hands and jubilation raised a paean in honour of their victory. They had
found the end of the war a much lighter task than the beginning; indeed they could
hardly believe that they had surmounted the last wall without bloodshed, and, seeing
none to oppose them were truly perplexed.15

Josephus then gives a graphic account of what followed.

Pouring into the alleys sword in hand they massacred indiscriminately all whom they met
and burnt the houses with all those who had taken refuge within . . . running everyone
through who fell in their way, they choked the alleys with corpses and deluged the whole
city in blood.

The city had finally fallen to Roman forces. Titus ordered the walls of the city to
be levelled, except for Hippicus, Phaesal and Mariamme towers and a stretch on
the western side, which was retained as a fortification for the Roman garrison.
The V, XII and XV legions returned to other stations in the east, while the X legion
with some auxiliaries remained behind to man the garrisons. Recent excavations
have revealed that the X legion was stationed in Jerusalem until the first half of
the third century ad.16
The Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was now instigated and the terms were
harsh. First the Temple was not to be rebuilt, second the High Priesthood and the
Sanhedrin were to be abolished, finally the Temple tax was to be paid directly to
Capitoline Jupiter, which of course meant it went straight to the Roman treasury.
Worst of all most Jewish lands now became Roman property and therefore the
peasants would be tenants of the emperor. These measures were flames to fan
the fighting spirit of those insurgents who still remained at large in the southern
Judaean desert. Jerusalem may have fallen but the Jewish war with Rome was not
yet completely over.
This page intentionally left blank
 14

The Zealots’ Last Stand

Long ago we resolved to serve neither the Romans nor

anyone else but only God. (JW 7:386)

Before leaving Jerusalem for Caesarea Titus organized a victory celebration in

the Roman camp. He delivered a speech to his men, and rewarded those who had
been valiant by crowning them with golden wreaths, promoting each individual
to a higher rank. The legionaries also held their own victory feast where huge
numbers of bullocks were sacrificed, and they also were rewarded with booty for
the spoils were indeed vast; nevertheless the majority of the treasure was reserved
for the triumph in Rome.
Josephus too received payment:

Again, when Jerusalem was on the point of being carried by assault, Titus Caesar
repeatedly urged me to take whatever I would from the wreck of my country stating, that
I had his permission. And I, now that my native place had fallen, having nothing more
precious to take and preserve as a solace for my personal misfortunes, made request to
Titus for the freedom of some of my countrymen; I also received by his gracious favour
a gift of sacred books. Not long after I made my petition for my brother and fifty friends,
and my request was granted.1

The vanquished Jews were paraded in a splendid triumph in Rome; an event

Josephus witnessed. John of Gischala and Simon b. Giora the rebel leaders, were
in chains as the procession made its way through the city heading for the Sacred
Way. Tableaux and models were presented on immense moving stages, three or
four storeys high depicting scenes from the war.

The war was shown by numerous representations, in separate sections affording a vivid
picture of its episodes here was to be seen a prosperous country devastated, there whole
battalions of the enemy slaughtered; here a party in flight, there others led into captivity;
walls of surpassing compass demolished by engines, strong fortresses overpowered,
cities with well manned defences completely mastered and an army pouring within
the ramparts, an area all deluged with blood, the hands of those incapable of resistance
raised in supplication, temples set on fire, houses pulled down over their owners heads
138 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

and after a general desolation and woe, rivers flowing not over a cultivated land but a
country still on every side in flames.2

The Holy treasures taken from the Temple, including other precious ornaments,
were also displayed. The procession contained 700 Jewish fighters selected for
their size and physique, dressed in elaborate garments. They had been selected six
months earlier from those who survived the manhunts after the fall of Jerusalem.
Some prisoners had been killed immediately; those who were found guilty of
terrorism were executed; while those who would be fit to grace the triumph
were imprisoned. The rest who were 17 years of age or over were divided into
two groups, some being sent to the imperial mines and quarries in Egypt, the
rest destined for the arena.
The Jewish leaders John and Simon were also displayed in the triumph; there
is no record of what happened to Eleazar. John had hidden underground at the
closing stage of the war; he had given himself up when his food supply ran out.
Simon on the other hand had remained active, trying to make his escape. He
and a small band tried to dig their way out but the distance was too great and
when their supplies ran out Simon tried a ruse. He dressed up in a short white
tunic and crimson cape and appeared among the ruins of the Temple, presumably
to frighten the Romans; although Josephus does not elaborate upon what
Simon’s exact intention was. The Romans were shocked but not panicked by
his actions; he was arrested, put in chains and sent to Titus who by now was in
Caesarea.
While John was condemned to life imprisonment Simon faced a worse fate.
When the triumph arrived at the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline, Simon was
pulled to the ground and dragged across the forum. As he passed through he was
scourged, a particularly unpleasant torture as the metal scourges ripped strips of
flesh from the victim’s body. Then at the place reserved for public executions he
was executed by slow strangulation. The death of this most charismatic of all the
freedom fighters was greeted by a resounding cheer from the crowds, followed
by a great feast.

After the announcement that Simon was no more and the shouts of universal applause
which greeted it, the princes began the sacrifices, which having been daily offered with
customary prayers, they withdrew to the palace. Some they entertained with a feast at
their own table; for all the rest provision had already been made for banquets in their
several homes. For the city of Rome kept festival that day for her victory in the campaign
against her enemies.3

Some modern scholars are disturbed by what appears to be any lack of emotion
on Josephus’ part to the display of the Temple treasures and the victory of the
 T H E Z E A L O T S ’ L A S T S TA N D 139

Romans over his fellow countrymen. Why does he not lament what has happened
to his country? Instead Josephus describes at some length the triumph and the
objects taken from the Temple in a very matter of fact way. After describing
the rest of the triumph and festivities he then jumps ahead to the completion
of the Temple of Peace built in ad 75 by the emperor. He says that Vespasian
displayed items that had been the focus of attention for tourists from all over
the world before this collection was on view. He specifically mentions the Law
and the purple hangings were kept at the palace. Josephus’ emphasis on upon the
Temple objects and their new home reflects the attention drawn to the Temple
throughout the whole text. We might well question whether ‘Josephus is setting
up for his readers a mental comparison between the relative grandeur of the
Jewish Temple and the monuments of Rome’.4 It is possible Josephus arranged
his text for a reason, to provide that very vivid view of the Temple, even after it
had been destroyed. In fact one scholar believes Josephus was making an active
political statement. Whether or not his readers in Rome chose to believe or act
upon it was another matter.

In the years that followed the fall of Jerusalem there were still pockets of rural
insurgency in southern Palestine. The region was mainly a wasteland and Roman
campaigns in ad 68/9 had largely been limited and indecisive. Many groups of
revolutionaries were still operating here with typical guerrilla tactics, not wishing
to be caught in cities that were under siege.
After the fall of the Holy city in ad 70 many fighters had managed to escape
and made their way south to join these various groups. Josephus says they
managed to form at least one new major base of operations at a place called the
Forest of Jardes; its exact location is unknown. There also still remained in rebel
hands the three desert fortresses of Herodium, Machaerus and Masada. The
Romans adopted a systematic approach to the capture of these rebel strongholds
by working their way out from Jerusalem and dealing with the stronghold nearest
the city first.
Herodium was about 10 miles (16 km) south of Jerusalem on the edge of the
Judaean desert and was the first to fall. This was another fortress built by Herod,
its appearance was of a steep-sided cone containing on the top the palace fortress,
which is where the rebels had entrenched themselves. The only access was by
an underground passageway that led up from the bottom of the hill; a high
casement wall and four projecting towers protected the summit, and there were
abundant store-rooms and cisterns in the thickness of the cone, built specifically
to withstand a siege.
The emperor ordered the destruction of these strongholds and left the task
to Lucilius Bassus who had been despatched to Judaea as governor of Palestine.
He had served Vespasian during the civil war, and for the first 18 months of
140 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Vespasian’s reign had been equestrian prefect of the fleets at Misenum and
Ravenna; with him came the first post-war procurator Laberius Maximus. In
the case of Herodium, Bassus seems to have succeeded without a great deal of
difficulty, for the defenders quickly surrendered, we have no clue why they did
so, or what terms were offered.
Bassus then led the army across the Jordan into south Peraea to attack the
second fortress at Machaerus, which lay a few miles east of the Dead Sea. This
fortress had been built by the Hasmonean kings during their conflict against
the Nabatean Arabs and was later rebuilt as another palace fortress by Herod. It
was a flat-topped rocky eminence surrounded by barren uplands, but was well
protected by ravines and steep slopes, strengthened with walls and towers around
the summit.
Bassus ordered a ramp to be built along the western approach to the fortress,
and the Jews countered with the usual regular daily sorties. However, some of the
Jews became reckless and one young fighter called Eleazar was captured. Bassus
threatened to have him crucified in full view of the whole city, and began by
having him stripped and scourged.

At which sight those in the fortress were seized with deeper dismay and with piercing
shrieks exclaimed that the tragedy was intolerable. At this juncture moreover, Eleazar
besought them not to leave him to undergo the most pitiable of all deaths, but to consult
their own safety by yielding to the might and fortune of the Romans, now that all others
had been subdued.5

At this point the resistance of the defenders collapsed, and the city surrendered
in order to save him. The people had asked for clemency, and were promised it,
however when the Romans arrived all the men numbering 1,700 were slain and
the women and children taken into slavery. By way of compensation, however
those who had actually offered surrender Bassus let depart unharmed and to
Eleazar he gave his freedom.
The Romans then marched on towards the Forest of Jardes where many of
the refugees from Machaerus and Jerusalem had collected including a militia
commander who had made his way through the Jerusalem sewers and had
slipped unnoticed through the Roman lines. Bassus threw a cavalry cordon round
the forest to prevent anyone escaping, then sent in the infantry to cut down the
trees. The Jews attempted to break out by launching a series of attacks on the
Roman lines, but each one was repulsed and the Jews driven back. After a lengthy
fight the entire force was wiped out with the loss of only 12 Roman legionaries.
Also at this time the emperor sent instructions to Bassus to bring all Jewish
territory under imperial control in accordance with the terms of the Pax Romana.
He also imposed on all Jews wherever they resided a poll tax of 2 drachms.
 T H E Z E A L O T S ’ L A S T S TA N D 141

However, before he could complete the task, Bassus died suddenly and the
command was handed over to Flavius Silva. It was now his responsibility to
capture the last outpost of Jewish resistance, Masada.

Flavius Silva who, now seeing the whole country subjugated by the Roman arms, with
the exception of one fortress still in revolt, concentrated all forces in the district and
marched against it. This fortress was called Masada.6

Jonathan, the High Priest possibly in the second century bc, first fortified
Masada, however Herod the Great erected the main buildings on the site. Scholars
are divided whether this is Jonathan, the brother of Judas Maccabee (middle of
the second century bc) or Alexander Jannaeus 176–103 bc who was known in
Hebrew as Jonathan.
This is how Josephus describes the fortress:

The report goes that Herod thus prepared this fortress as a refuge for himself suspecting
a twofold danger; peril on the one hand from the Jewish people . . . the greater and more
serious from Cleopatra, queen of Egypt. She never concealed her intention but was ever
importuning Antony urging him to slay Herod and praying him to confer on her the
throne of Judaea.7

He tells of the spectacular palace Herod built there. It was constructed on the
western ascent, beneath the walls of the citadel, inclined to its north side. The wall
of the palace was high with four towers, one at each corner. The palace contained
cloisters, baths and many other rooms all lavishly furnished and covered with
mosaic floors.8 The great plateau on the top of this rock cut fortress measured
600 metres (1,975 ft) north–south and 300 metres (975 ft) east–west at its widest
point, is almost entirely circled by cliffs. Along part of the eastern side there is
a 400 metre (1,250 ft) sheer drop, and from this side the only way to reach the
top is by a precipitous winding single-lane path known from antiquity as the
‘snake’ path.
The ascent from the western side was much easier only being 75 metres (250
ft) from ground level to the summit but once again there was only one route to
the top. The site was heavily fortified with a perimeter wall 1,300 metres (4,275
ft) long circumventing almost the entire length of the summit. The wall was
about 5 metres (16 ft) high, strengthened by the addition of numerous towers.
There were large supplies of arms in the fortress, Josephus says enough for 10,000
men although this is probably an exaggeration on his part, and large quantities
of food and water. Herod had constructed huge cisterns and a system of dams
and aqueducts to fill them during the rainy season. Therefore this site was a
particularly difficult place to attack, for most of the year Masada was surrounded
142 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

by parched wasteland of rock and sand. Any supplies would have to be hauled
over many miles of difficult desert terrain, risking losses not only from sudden
bandit attacks. This then was the prospect that faced the Roman legions sent to
capture it.
The resistance was led by Eleazar b. Yair who came from an old revolutionary
family that included the notorious Hezekiah the bandit chief responsible for
terrorizing the neighbourhood of Galilee, who had carried out his raids as far
as the Syrian frontier. They probably comprised of the remnants of Aristobulus’
party, always strong in Galilee and who still looked for the succession of
the sole male survivor of the family, Antigonus. Herod the Great was then
military governor of Galilee and vigorously tackled the problem rounding up
the bandits and killing them in 48–47 bc. Hezekiah’s son was Judas, organiser
of the tax revolt against Rome in ad 6 and a possible founder of the Zealot
movement; his son Menahem was a prominent Zealot leader in Jerusalem in
ad 66.
Accompanying Eleazar on this mountain fortress were 960 followers referred
to by Josephus as Sicarians, although he also describes them in the text as
Zealots. However, there seems to have been a spilt between the two groups, the
Jerusalem group who established itself on Temple Mount under Eleazar b. Simon
in November ad 66 (these were the men later absorbed by John of Gischala’s
group), and the Masada contingent, who had kept away from Jerusalem after they
had been expelled that same year. After the death of Menahem by government
forces, the leadership appears to have passed to his kinsman Eleazar b. Yair, who
followed a strategy of rural banditry and guerrilla warfare.
It appears the group at Masada were one of the many that had dealings with
Simon b. Giora during his campaigns in southern Judaea and Idumaea in ad
67–69. Josephus tells us that they had disagreed over strategy. Simon failed to
persuade them to undertake anything other than raids around Masada, therefore
they remained entrenched in their fortress supporting themselves by the raids
they carried out, still intent on waging war against Rome.
The excavations carried out at Masada have demonstrated they lived in small
family groups; many of the 110 rooms of the casement wall had been divided
to create domestic units. There were also ritual baths and more importantly a
synagogue which contained fragments of Holy text, one of which was singularly
important for identifying the defenders of Masada, who would appear to have
been politico-religious revolutionaries and not just the ‘bandits’ Josephus would
have us believe they were.
The Romans certainly took the threat of insurgency seriously for any uprising
would undermine the stability of the new Flavian regime, and could well spark
other revolts in different parts of the empire. So in the winter of ad 72/3 or 73/4
a Roman force of approximately 15,000 men, comprising the X legion, auxiliaries,
 T H E Z E A L O T S ’ L A S T S TA N D 143

civilians and numerous Jewish slaves, responsible for carrying food and water,
arrived at the foot of the fortress.
Silva had pacified and garrisoned the region ensuring the rebels were now
confined to the fortress. He then established a blockade round it, and set to
building eight camps for his troops and a wall of circumvallation over three
miles in circumference. Two of the eight camps were vexillation camps, each one
could accommodate half a legion, and these were built just behind the Roman
wall opposite the two approaches to the fortress on both the east and the west.
The other six camps were for the auxiliaries, two were military and could hold
roughly 1,000 men each, the others were quingenary and could hold about 500
men. The auxiliary camps were sited to cover the main approaches, possible
escape routes and in the case of one of them, to allow observation into Masada
from above. In total the camps provided accommodation for about 9,000 men;
slaves presumably were housed in temporary shelters.
The camps were organized into regular tent lines, one for each century of 80
men, with separate cells for each eight-man section.9 The cells were formed of
drystone walls with benches for sitting and sleeping, across the top of which,
supported on poles, leather tents were spread. The wall of circumvallation that
even went along the tops of vertical cliffs was nearly 2 metres (6 ft) thick, and
was reinforced on the eastern side, where a possible breakout might occur, by 15
towers set at 70 to 90 metre (230–300 ft) intervals. Silva was determined there
would be nothing left to chance, there was no way the Romans would take any
risks the rebels might escape to continue the struggle elsewhere; for Rome this
had to be the final battle for Judaea.
The only possible way to defeat the rebels would be to storm the citadel; a
blockade would have been pointless as they had enough supplies to last for an
indefinite period. To storm the fortress the Romans needed to employ an assault
ramp, and there was only one place where this could be located, even so the
prospect was daunting and would require consummate engineering skill.
Beyond the edge of the western gate was a ridge of high ground, which Josephus
refers to as the ‘white cliff ’ and here Silva ordered his men to build a huge ramp
of earth and timber on top of it, raising the height by approximately 30 metres
(100 ft). At the upper end of the ramp, close to the fortress walls the Romans
constructed a level fighting platform, on to which they hauled their engines,
which included a massive iron-plated tower almost 30 metres (100 ft) high filled
with stone throwers and bolt shooters to rid the battlements of rebel defenders,
and a huge ram which quickly smashed through a section of the wall.
The Zealots too had been busy and must surely have offered resistance
to the Roman operations in typical guerrilla fashion. The excavations at
Masada revealed huge stone boulders located in various casement rooms at
strategic positions along the perimeter walls, evidence to demonstrate they were
144 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

employing some defensive measures. Josephus does tell us, however, that while
the Romans were battering down the wall the defenders were busy constructing
a new wall behind it.

The siccari, however, had already hastily built up another wall inside which was not likely
to meet with a similar fate from the engines; for it was pliable and calculated to break
the force of the impact.

Josephus then goes on to say how it was constructed,

Great beams were laid lengthwise and contiguous and joined at the extremities; of
these there were two parallel rows a walls breadth apart, and the intermediate space was
filled with earth. Further to prevent the soil from dispersing as the mound rose, they
clamped by other transverse beams, those laid longitudinally. The work thus presented
to the enemy the appearance of masonry but the blows of the engines were weakened,
battering upon yielding material, which as it settled down under the concussion, they
merely served to solidify.10

Of course the new wall was vulnerable to fire and consequently Silva ordered his
men to shoot volleys of fire-brands at the wall. Soon the fire took hold, although
a change in the direction of the wind did at one point threaten to turn the flames
back on to the siege engines. However, the wind changed direction yet again and
the wall caught light. By the end of the day the second wall had been destroyed
leaving a wide breach into the fortress. The following morning the Roman assault
would begin, and that night the Roman watch was doubled to prevent anyone
attempting to leave Masada by any exit.
However, the Zealots had contingency plans. The next morning Silva ordered
the advance and the Romans stormed the fortress. On their arrival the following
morning they found no rebels in the breach and no rebels in the compound
beyond. In fact, all was quiet, the legionaries were perplexed and shouted hoping
the enemy should show themselves. The only sign of life was when two women
and five children emerged from a water channel where they had been hiding.
They were the only survivors of the rebel community numbering 960 people.
One of the women told what had happened the night before and her account
was entered in the official Roman log, which Josephus would most probably have
consulted. There has been some doubt cast by scholars on the veracity of the story
but it seems that there is little doubt that the basic factual record is correct.
It appears Eleazar persuaded his followers to enter into a suicide pact rather
than allow themselves to fall into Roman hands. The men first killed their wives
and children, and made a huge bonfire of their belongings. Then they drew lots
and ten men were selected to kill their companions, each of whom lay down next
 T H E Z E A L O T S ’ L A S T S TA N D 145

to his wife and children and waited for their throat to be cut. Then the remaining
ten drew lots and one was selected to kill the other nine before killing himself.
This was the sight that greeted the Romans that morning, rows of bodies lying
in their family groups.
Josephus gives a moving account of the speech that Eleazar delivered to his
people the night of 15 April ad 73/4.

My loyal followers, long ago we resolved to serve neither the Romans nor anyone else
but only God who alone is the true and righteous lord of men: now the time has come
that bids us determination by our deeds. At such a time we must not disgrace ourselves:
hitherto we have never submitted to slavery, even when it brought no danger with it; we
must not chose slavery now and with it penalties that will mean the end of everything if
we fall alive into the hands of the Romans. For we were the first of all to revolt and shall
be the last to break off the struggle. And I think it is god who has given us this privilege
that we can die nobly and as free men, unlike others who were unexpectedly defeated,
in our case it is evident that day break will end our resistance, but we are free to choose
an honourable death with our loved ones. This our enemies cannot prevent, however
earnestly they may pray to take us alive; nor can we defeat them in battle.
Let our wives die un-abused, our children without knowledge of slavery: after that,
let us do an ungrudging kindness, preserving our freedom as a glorious winding sheet.
But first let our possessions and the whole fortress go up in flames: it will be a bitter blow
to the Romans, that I know, to find our persons beyond their reach and nothing left for
them to loot. One thing only let us spare our store of food; it will bear witness when we
are dead to the fact that we perished, not through want but because, as we resolved at
the beginning, we chose death rather than slavery.
If only we had all died before seeing the Sacred City utterly destroyed by enemy hands,
the Holy Sanctuary so impiously uprooted! But since an honourable ambition deluded
us into thinking that perhaps we should succeed in avenging her of her enemies, and now
all hope has fled, abandoning us to our fate, let us at once choose death with honour and
do the kindest thing we can for ourselves, our wives and children, while it is still possible
to show ourselves any kindness. After all we were born to die, we, and those we brought
into the world; this even the luckiest must face. But outrage, slavery and the sight of our
wives led away to shame with our children – these are not evils to which man is subject
by the laws of nature; men undergo them through their own cowardice if they have a
chance to forestall them by death and will not take it. We are very proud of our courage,
so we revolted against Rome: now in the final stages they have offered to spare our lives
and we have turned the offer down. Is anyone too blind to see how furious they will be if
they take us alive? Pity the young whose bodies are strong enough to survive prolonged
torture; pity the not so young whose old frames would break under such ill usage. A man
will see his wife violently carried off; he will hear the voice of his child crying, ‘Father!’
when his own hands are fettered. Come! While our hands are free and can hold a sword,
146 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

let them do a noble service! Let us die un-enslaved by our enemies, and leave this world
as free men in company with our wives and children.11

It seems apparent Josephus had no direct information about what happened at

Masada. Military activities were recorded; the account of the surviving women
was also recorded, so he tells us, but this may probably have circulated by word of
mouth, rather than actually written down. However, the organization of the Jews
and the exact nature of their resistance still remains a mystery. One prominent
Josephus scholar has made an observation on this by stating that Josephus in his
account: ‘Took an unexpected step; with an act of imagination he put himself
among the defenders, and transformed that final scene into an extended dramatic
narrative’.12
Obviously, Josephus did not invent the incident at Masada, it seems what
he did do, however, was to create two very important speeches for Eleazar,
intended to inspire admiration for the man who uttered them. Eleazar and his
Zealot companions are made into virtual heroes, which would appear rather
strange considering his vehemence throughout the rest of his texts towards these
groups. One explanation is that he uses a well-contrived literary device when he
contrasts the Roman triumph with the Jewish episode at Masada that provides
a counterweight to the Roman victory. He allocates a prominent position in his
final book to the fate of Masada when he could have closed it with an account
of the end of the war proper.
However, the incident at Masada is not the end of his book, the Jewish War
concludes with the death of a persecutor; he gives a graphic account of the disease
which afflicted the Governor of Libya after he had executed approximately 3,000
wealthy Jews on a false charge of revolutionary activity and had others dragged
in chains to Rome.
Now contemplating the aftermath of the revolt he is tossed to and fro,
extending emotion in various directions. Along with his homeland he has for
a time lost his mental anchorage, and here it is shown in his writing. In this
way it continues to be an immediate product of pressing circumstances, and
to illuminate them through the strong responses expressed, and through its
weaknesses as history and literature.13

The war with Rome did continue, for others carried on the revolutionary ideology,
and the cause continued in other parts of the empire. Some Zealots made their way
to Alexandria in Egypt and attempted to build a base there but were handed over
to the Romans by the Jewish nobles. The reaction to their continued defiance even
under torture was to abolish the Jewish Temple of the Egyptian Jews at Onias.
In Cyrene there were also disturbances. Another Zealot fugitive, Jonathan,
led a group of poorer citizens into the desert promising to show them signs
 T H E Z E A L O T S ’ L A S T S TA N D 147

and portents. The Jewish nobility denounced him also, and Rome despatched a
military force to deal with them. Jonathan escaped but was later captured and
taken in chains to Rome where he was tortured before being burnt alive.
Nevertheless Zealotism continued. There were further bouts of insurrection
in ad 115–17 in the cities of the Diaspora, in Cyrene, Egypt and Cyprus until in
ad 132–6 there was another rebellion in Palestine. This final revolt was connected
with Simon Bar Kochba, whose name translates as Son of the Star, the new
Jewish Messiah. The greatest Jewish sage of the time, the radical rabbi Akiva
recognized and supported his claims. The rebels managed to win back the Holy
city of Jerusalem, rebuilt its walls, appointed a new High Priest, and restored
Temple ritual. They issued a variety of coins that proclaimed the Redemption of
Israel. They were supported by volunteers and exiles now returned to Palestine
from the Diaspora. The countryside was teeming with armed guerrilla fighters
and once again the caves and desert fortresses were defended by Jewish freedom
fighters. It took Rome four years and eight legions to crush this rebellion, and
we have less information about the events than for the Jewish war. There was no
Josephus to write an account, for he had died almost 20 years before in Rome,
having served his Roman patrons with an account of their triumph over the
Jews, and served history with one of the most complete accounts known from
the ancient world.
This page intentionally left blank
 15

Epilogue

They poured on to the streets sword in hand, cut down

without mercy all who came within reach, and burnt the houses of
any who took refuge indoors. (JW 6:403)

In 1970 excavations were being carried out in the Jewish quarter of the old city
in Jerusalem when archaeologists uncovered the remains of a house dated to the
fall of the city in ad 70. The site of the ‘burnt house’ is open to public viewing,
and is impressive, vividly bringing to life the words of Josephus above concerning
that tragic event.
At ground-floor level the building consisted of a small courtyard, five rooms
and a ritual bath. The upper walls had collapsed and beneath the rubble was
buried a layer of earth, ash, charred wood, soot, broken glass, potsherds, stone
vessels and iron nails. Many of the objects had been broken before being scorched
by fire. The plastered walls were blackened with soot, and scattered across the
floor were coins, some from the period of the old procurators and some from
the revolutionary period. If any further proof were needed of the violence that
had taken place here then it was found; the remains of a human arm, with hand
outstretched, as if grasping a step, was uncovered near the kitchen doorway.
Until the time of this discovery the only other major archaeological site of
note relating to the struggle of the Jews against Rome was Masada. Excavations
were undertaken here in the 1960s by Yadin when the site was re-discovered and
the impact of Josephus’ account of the heroic last stand of the Jews against their
enemies re-awakened a nationalistic response from the newly formed state of
Israel. The nationalistic fervour created was so intense all Israeli soldiers swore
their oath of allegiance on the top of this rock fortress and the words ‘Masada
shall not fall again’ became a watchword for a new generation of Jews.
Certainly the most visually dramatic material results from the excavations
carried out by Yadin in 1963/5. The site is indeed impressive; today a cable car
takes you to the summit, but for the more energetic the old route via the ‘snake
path’ is an alternative ascent. From the top the remains of the Roman camps are
clearly visible, and are by far the best preserved of any Roman camps anywhere
in Europe. The remaining buildings on the site itself including the upper and
lower palaces are also well preserved.
150 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

However, the archaeological record attesting to the final events here, the mass
suicide of over 900 people, is disappointing for there was little trace of any human
skeletal remains whatsoever. That is not to say they may not have been buried
somewhere in the desert vicinity of the fortress, but if this is the case then only
a chance find will confirm it. Despite the fact no skeletons were discovered there
was proof, however, of extensive fire and destruction. Some rooms remained
undamaged while in others, pieces of furniture, nails and metal were found to
be all fire damaged, which may reflect the evidence supplied by Josephus of the
last actions of the Zealots who made haste to assemble all their goods in one
place and set fire to them.
Among the other buildings on the site was a house of study, indicating that
the defenders of Masada were religious and not just bandit revolutionaries
that Josephus so often calls them. The house of study (Bet Midras) contained
stone benches that were sited along the walls framing a central hall indicating
the study house could also have been used as a meeting place; somewhere no
doubt where the strategy to foil the Roman assault was debated. The priests and
Levites whose status was preserved and recognized at Masada conducted religious
services. The coupons for their rations are marked ma’asar kohen (priest’s tithe),
in acknowledgement of the commandment of tithing. Other ostraka (potsherds)
had letters inscribed on them, T (for truma gift offering) or tevel (untithed
produce). Special rations were also allocated for ritual purposes as evidenced
by appropriate inscriptions on the jars kodesh (holy) ksherin (clean for the
purposes of holiness). The Zealots had brought Bible scrolls with them to Masada
and fragments of these were also found from the books of Genesis, Leviticus,
Deuteronomy, Ezechial and Psalms. Their sacred writings even included some
of the apocryphal works like Ben Sirach and Jubilees.
The Messianic, and some would say revolutionary, sect that were established at
Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea, the Essenes, also had members amongst
the refugees at Masada and they also brought their sectarian literature such as
the Song of the Sabbath Sacrifices. It is clear from the evidence retrieved men of
different sects and beliefs found themselves united together on this rocky fortress
in the desert for one last attempt to be free from their Roman masters.
Perhaps the most exciting of all the finds, although perhaps amongst the
smallest, was a piece of ostrakon. Near the inner gate leading to the northern
complex were found ten small ostraka with a name or nick-name scratched on
to them, ‘the bakers son’, ‘the man from the valley’, ‘Joab’ etc. But one piece of
ostrakon bore the name Beniar (Ben Yair), could this be the leader Eleazar? And
the remaining pieces bear the names of the ten men chosen by lot to despatch
their comrades?
More recent excavations at Masada undertaken in 1996 have yielded a variety
of interesting finds that told something of the everyday life of the revolutionaries
 EPILO GUE 151

who lived and died here, such items as Italian glass vessels and Nabatean table-
ware. Amongst the material unearthed were a mass of small pebbles piled in a
heap near the northern end, no doubt these had been used as slingshot against the
Roman forces assembled below. There is no more compelling site than Masada
and perhaps it is here that one can truly appreciate the struggle of the Jews against
the might of Rome.
However, there is still a great deal we do not know about the war, and research
continues both historically and archaeologically to understand and elucidate the
truth from the works of Josephus. In recent years many of the sites associated
with the rebellion in Galilee have also come under scrutiny. It would appear from
the time of Herod the Great up to the period of the revolt Jews in Galilee were
no longer purchasing one particular type of ceramic, red slip bowl commonly
known as eastern sigillata, brightly coloured fancy table vessels. Their acquisition
performed a convenient communicative role as a manifestation of foreign and
specifically Roman control. It has been argued that this lack of material evidence
demonstrates that Galilean Jews deliberately rejected them in a ‘simple political
statement of solidarity and affinity with a traditional simple unadorned Jewish
lifestyle’.1 Does this mean that Galilee was a hotbed of dissent right from start, or
that the people of Galilee were more traditional than their city brethren? Clearly
this is a topic that will be continually debated by scholars.

Gamala was a city that had suffered both siege and battle and is described by
Josephus in some detail. Excavations were carried out here from 1976–89 and in
1995 archaeologists attempted to assess the events that took place here during the
revolt ‘as reported by Josephus and filtered through the archaeological evidence’.2
With the exception of Jotapata Gamala is one of the few examples of a battle site
of the first century ad throughout the Roman Empire left as it was abandoned.
Since the site was never resettled it provided for the archaeologist an unparalleled
glimpse of Jewish life in the last decades of the Second Temple period.

The city which nature had rendered so impregnable, Josephus had fortified with walls
and secured still further by mines and trenches. Its occupants felt greater confidence
in the nature of their site than did those of Jotapata, though far inferior to them in the
number of combatants; indeed such trust they had in their position that they would
admit no more.3

Josephus says the city was so well fortified it attracted many refugees from
the rebellion as well as people from the local community and neighbouring
towns, who felt secure behind its walls. Two areas in the city were excavated and
supplied evidence for occupation by such refugees; for example in the western
quarters even the synagogue had been converted to a dwelling area. Remains
152 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

were also uncovered of meagre fireplaces, cooking utensils, storage jars; all were
uncovered beneath a quantity of ballista balls used by the Romans to smash the
place down.
The suicide at Masada is paralleled in the writings of Josephus by his account
of the suicide at Gamala, when:

Despairing of their lives and hemmed in on every side, multitudes plunged headlong
with their wives and children into the ravine which had been excavated to a vast depth
beneath the citadel. Indeed the rage of the Romans was thus made to appear milder
than the fanatic self immolation of the vanquished, four thousand only being slain by
the former, while those who flung themselves over the cliff were found to exceed five
thousand.4

However, one scholar has taken a pragmatic approach to disproving the suicide
story: for as already noted, the only place along the ridge where there is a vertical
cliff high enough for someone falling off it to die with any reasonable certainty,
can only be reached with some difficulty. Even in antiquity when the ridge may
have been much larger it would still only have accommodated around 500 people.
The second point is that in the heat of battle it would hardy have been likely they
would have had time to rally and decide on mass suicide. It would seem more
feasible that the remaining defenders and townspeople were trying to flee down
the steep northern slope and were trampled underfoot in the ensuing panic.
Josephus may well have witnessed the event from the nearby ridge at Deir
Qaruh and perhaps to him it may have looked like mass suicide. However, the
physical evidence suggests not. During the 14 years of excavations carried out on
this site, as with Masada no human skeleton has been found. This may of course
reflect the Jewish religious command for burial of the dead. The Romans may
well have allowed the Jews to return to bury the bodies while at the same time
doing them a service by way of removing a health hazard. If so the dead were
most probably interred in a mass grave somewhere in the vicinity and as with
Masada their discovery will only come about by chance. The recent discovery of
a mass burial in a cistern at Jotapata seems to confirm this theory.

Jotapata was the site of the second bloodiest battle after the battle of Jerusalem,
and the third longest siege after Jerusalem and Masada and of course the battle
in which Josephus played a key role as commander of the defending forces.
Examination of the site revealed two phases of fortification one from the
Hellenistic period and one during the early Roman period. The excavations
revealed the hastily constructed fortifications which followed the line of topo-
graphy dated to the first century ad and probably identifiable with the efforts
described by Josephus.
 EPILO GUE 153

During the 1999 excavation season three areas of the Roman wall circuit were
uncovered, one of which revealed the remains of a private dwelling. In another
area three casements were excavated all surviving to their foundations. In the
westernmost room a short narrow shaft was discovered which led to a narrow
tunnel with a gabled roof that opened into three rock cut chambers, which clearly
served as hideouts. Other evidence of the battle was found, apart from arrow-
heads and ballistas; the remains of earthworks were also located.

It was decided to erect earthworks against the accessible portion of the wall, whereupon
the whole army was sent out to procure the necessary materials. The mountain forests
surrounding the town were stripped, and besides timber, enormous masses of stones
were collected.5

The layers of stony soil confirmed this account by Josephus and furthermore
mortar was uncovered that the Romans had used to build the ramp.
Once again the issue of suicide raises its head. Besides this site, only three other
battle sites have been excavated, Masada, Gamala and Jerusalem and only very few
skeletal remains have been found. However, the finds at Jotapata have been more
encouraging. There were some part-burnt human bones found in the weight pit
of the cave that contained the oil press. At the bottom of a cistern in one field was
a burial chamber containing the remains of two adults and a child, and further
bones were found in the upper level of a cistern in another field.
During the 1999 excavations in the northern part of the same field, a large
cistern was uncovered revealing many human bones and skulls. Analysis showed
the remains belonged to about 20 different people, 12 adults including four
females and eight children under 18 years of age. Other finds include pottery
from the first century ad and ballista stones. Further excavations here may
well reveal more skeletal remains. The evidence suggests the Romans allowed
the inhabitants of Jotapata to return and bury their dead. However, according
to the excavators, the numbers of the dead given by Josephus may have been
exaggerated. Some human skeletal remains were found on the site of the northern
palace at Masada and some complete skeletons in a cave below the cliff. In
Jerusalem only the remains of an arm from the Burnt House have so far been
discovered, and at Gamala one human jaw-bone. The story of Jotapata is one of
the most detailed in the whole War saga and these excavations have succeeded
in proving many aspects of Josephus narrative to be correct.

However, the most enduring monument to the Jewish war still stands today in
Rome, the remaining one of three Arches of Titus, representing of course the
Roman view, and which marked out the processional route taken by the triumph.
The first arch was constructed in ad 79–81, and the Arch of Titus in the Circus
154 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Maximus in ad 81, the surviving arch was completed after his death in ad 81.
The reliefs on the arch show the spoils taken from the Temple, processing through
the streets to their final resting place in the Temple of Peace.
What is significant about the arch completed in ad 81 was its exceptional
prominence, a visible reminder to over 100,000 people of the capture of
Jerusalem. Part of the inscription reveals a blatantly false claim:

on the instructions and advice of his father [Vespasian], and under his auspices he
subdued the race of the Jews and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, which by all generals,
kings or races previous to himself had either been attacked in vain or not even attempted
at all.6

Josephus’ book Jewish War had already been written and had recorded the fact
Jerusalem had been captured by the Roman general Pompey in 63 bc and again
by Sosius in 37 bc; indeed Sosius had built a temple in honour of his achievement
near the Theatre of Marcellus. So it is incomprehensible the Romans would not
have been aware of their previous history.
Titus died not long after the inscription was put in place. The remaining
surviving arch was erected after his death so it could be viewed as a commemorative
arch. The arch lies along the route to the Colosseum the great amphitheatre that
excites and attracts millions of visitors from every corner of the world, and the
greatest of all the monuments erected by the Flavians.
A recent inscription find from the amphitheatre shows the two monuments
are even more closely connected to the Jewish war than was previously thought.
It appears the construction of the Colosseum was paid for from the ‘spoils of war’,
there is no reference to Judaea but there had been no other war with which the
Flavians were involved, so it can be accepted the reference is to the Jewish war.7
It is poignant to contemplate the feelings and thoughts of those Jewish prisoners
who found themselves forced into the arena to compete in the bloody spectacles
there, it is almost as if the Jewish state had financed their deaths.
The archaeological record is far from complete and who knows what future
discoveries await archaeologists and researchers; indeed the story is far from over
concerning events in Judaea in the first century ad.
 Notes

1 Faulkner, N. (2002) Apocalypse: The Great Jewish Revolt against Rome. 383.
2 Berlin, A. and Overman J. (eds)(2002) The First Jewish Revolt Introduction. They refer to
him as ‘this famous and provocative historian’.
3 ibid. ‘As eyewitness to many events of the revolt he is therefore an invaluable historical
source. He was able to do this because he was a capitulator working with the Roman
forces.’
4 Goodman, M. (1987) The Ruling Class of Judaea, Schwartz, S. (1990) Josephus and Judaean
Politics.
5 Rajak, T. (2000) Josephus; McLaren, J.S. (1998) Turbulent Times?: Josephus and Scholarship
in Judaea in the First Century ce.
6 Goodman (1987).

Notes Chapter 1.

1 1 Maccabees 27.
2 Josephus JW 1:402–28.
3 Avi-Yonah, M. (2001) A History of Israel and the Holy Land 149.
4 Strabo Geography XVII 3.25 (840).
5 Tacitus Histories 1.11.
6 Schürer, E. (rev. 1973) History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ Vol. I Chapter
17.
7 Tacitus Histories 5.9.
8 ibid 5:5.
9 Rajak 106.

Notes Chapter 2.

1 Life 8.
2 Life 12.
3 Life 23.
4 Life 29.
5 For further information on the mathematical information concerning the Josephus count,
and to play the number game visit www.cut-the-knot-org/rec/flavius
6 Suetonius ‘Vespasian’, The Twelve Caesars 5. Abot de-R. Nathan 4, 5
156 N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 9 – 3 1

7 Life 426–7.
8 Roth, C. (1959) Introduction The Jewish War.
9 Life 429–30.
10 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History and Martyres of Palestine iii, 9.
11 JA 20: 262.
12 Schürer 49.
13 Schalit, A. (1965) ‘Evidence of an aramaic source in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews’. ASTI.
4 163–88.
14 For a full list of other non-Biblical source material used by Josephus see Schürer 49, ft 13.
15 For a more favourable view of Josephus’ use of Nicolaus of Damascus’ work see Prof. Ben
Zion Wacholder, ‘Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus’ in Feldman and Hata (eds) (1989)
Josephus the Bible and History.
16 Thackery, H. St J. (1967) Josephus the Man and the Historian 37.
17 Against Apion i.9.40.
18 Antiquities 10.10.4.
19 Daniel 2:44.
20 For example, Rajak esp. 220–1.
21 ibid 221.
22 For a good discussion of the way in which Josephus manipulates the events on Masada see
Broshi, M. (1982) ‘The credibility of Josephus’. JJS Vol. 33 379.
23 JW 1.15.
24 Goodman (1987).

Notes Chapter 3.

1 Bilde, P. (1979) ‘The causes of the Jewish War according to Josephus’. JSJ Vol. X. No. 2.
2 Goodman, Rappaport, Smallwood.
3 JW 4:386–8.
4 JW 2:457–90.
5 Not all decisions made by Rome were insensitive to Judaea, for example the emperor
Claudius’ appointment of Agrippa I as king in ad 41 was designed to placate Jewish feelings
after the disastrous episode with Caligula.
6 Smallwood, E.M. (1981) The Jews under Roman Rule 284.
7 Bilde op. cit.
8 Smallwood Ch. 11.
9 See Sorek, S.M. (2002) ‘Render unto Caesar, Pilate and the Temple funds’. Eras Online
Journal. Monash University School of Historical Studies. Edition 4. December.
10 Philo Legatio.
11 ibid.
12 Kindler, A. (1974) Coins of the Land of Israel.
13 Smallwood 167.
14 The ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ summary of the life of Christ (AJ 18:63–4) is a topic of
controversy. For further information on this see Feldman, Loeb ed. Antiquities 1985.
 N O T E S T O PA G E S 3 1 – 5 3 157

15 Tacitus Histories 5.10.

16 Millar, F. (1977) The Emperor in The Roman World.
17 JW 2:220.
18 Gabba, E. (1999) ‘The social, economic and political history of Palestine 63 bce-ce 70’ in
The Cambridge History of Judaism Vol. 3 The Early Roman Period 141
19 Tacitus Annals 12.54.
20 The account of Felix that appears in Acts is taken from an account written by the accusers
of St Paul to prejudice the procurator against the man who they considered a disruptive
element.
21 JW 2:26ff.
22 Tacitus Histories. 5.10.

Notes Chapter 4.

1 Goodman, M. (2006) Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilisations 169ff.
2 Ezekiel 18.2.
3 Smallwood 293.
4 Goodman (1987) 20.
5 Bilde 193.
6 JA 18:10.
7 JA 18:25.
8 Daniel 2:44.
9 JW 4:225.
10 Goodman (1987) 201; Horsley, R.A. (1996) ‘Zealots, the origin, relationship and
importance in the Jewish revolt’. Novum Testamentum XXVIII. 2.
11 Roth, C. (1959) ‘The Zealots in the war of 66–73 ad’. JSS IV (iv). Numbers 25.2.
12 Mishnah Peser 10.9–13.
13 JA 18:10.
14 Smallwood 155.

Notes Chapter 5.

1 See Sorek (2002).

2 Goodman (1987) 171.
3 JW 2:295.
4 JW 2:311.
5 JW 2:397–9.
6 Confirmed by Talmud.
7 JW 2:426–7.
8 JW 2:484–60.
9 JW 2:457–80.
158 N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 6 – 7 0

Notes Chapter 6.

1 JW 2:525–6.
2 JW 2:531.
3 JW 2:523. See also Goodman (2006).
4 JA 2:160.
5 JW 2:550.
6 JW 2:556.
7 ibid.
8 A full account is given by Roth, C. (1964) JSemJ ix 295–319.
9 Smallwood 299.
10 See Faulkner (2002) 180.
11 Kindler.

Notes Chapter 7.

1 See Rajak, T. (1973) ‘Justus of Tiberias’ CQ 23 364–68.

2 Horsley (1993) in particular makes this point in Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular
Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine Ch. 4.
3 Rajak (2000) 147–9.
4 ibid 167. There are some instances where the account in War seems more reliable, notably
2:565 compared with Life 28. According to her, with regard to some aspects of the narrative,
Vita [Life] gives flesh to the bones of BJ [War].
5 Life 22.
6 Goodman (1987) 158–9.
7 ibid.
8 Rajak (2000) 168.
9 Vermes, G. (1983) Jesus the Jew Ch. 2, 44.
10 Schwartz, S. ‘Josephus in Galilee: rural patronage and social breakdown’, in Parente, F. and
Sievers J. (eds) (1994) Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period. 290–308. It
should be noted that this view is diametrically opposed to Goodman’s hypothesis.
11 Rajak (2000)(159) says that Josephus made an incorrect statement when he said Sepphoris
was eager for war. Smallwood (302) says Sepphoris had declared for the rebels despite being
in Roman hands.
12 JW 3:129. According to Josephus the priests had been bribed by John.
13 Life 67ff.
14 JW 2:607.
15 Life 44–5.
16 See Rappaport, U. (1982) ‘John of Gischala, from Galilee to Jerusalem’. JJS 33 479–93. The
same assertions cannot be made for the other notable Galilean leader Simon b. Gioras;
although Goodman makes the claim for him being of noble lineage, this is strongly
criticised by Geiger in his review of Goodman’s book (1987) see JRA 2 (1989) 291–4.
17 ibid.
 N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 0 – 8 9 159

18 Goodman (1987) 165 and 182–5. This is inferred from John’s association with Simon b.
Gamaliel (Life 192, 195).
19 Rajak (2000) 162ff.
20 ibid 160.
21 Schwartz, S. (1994) ‘Josephus in Galilee’ 290–308.
22 Goodman (1987) 51–75.
23 See also Applebaum, S. ‘The struggle for soil and the revolt of 66–73ce’ in Feldman and
Hata (eds) Josephus, the Bible and History 237ff.
24 ibid.
25 On absentee landlords see New Testament Matthew 21: 33–4, and Midrash Lamentations
Rabbah II.5.
26 Life 35ff.
27 Horsley Ch. 4.
28 War 2:31–6:320–4.
29 For an interesting discussion on the Jewish response to the power of Rome see B. D. Shaw,
‘Josephus: Power and responses to it’. Athenaeum 83 1995.

Notes Chapter 8.

1 JW 3:138.
2 In Polybius Histories.
3 JW 3:231–3.
4 Life 35ff.
5 ibid.
6 JW 3:264.
7 JW 3:331.
8 JW 3:339–403.
9 (‘Vesp.’ 5, 6). This is also to be found in Tacitus Histories ii, 78, 3.
10 Rajak (2000) 167–72.
11 JW 3:295.

Notes Chapter 9.

1 JW 3:469–70.
2 JW 2:236 and 243ff.
3 JW 4:4–8.
4 JW 4:36.
5 JW 4:72–81.
6 Stern, M. (1982) ‘The Suicide of Eleazar ben Yair and his men at Marada, and the Fourth
Philosophy.
7 Syon, D. (2002) ‘Gamala: City of Refuge’ in Berlin and Overman (eds) The First Jewish
Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology.
160 N O T E S T O PA G E S 8 9 – 1 1 6

8 ibid 150.
9 JW 4:92.
10 JW 4:115.
11 JW 3:425–34.

Notes Chapter 10.

1 JW 4:125.
2 JW 4:159.
3 Ananus’ impassioned speech can be found in JW 4:162–8.
4 JW 4:182–8.
5 JW 4:214.
6 JW 4:224.
7 JW 4:285.
8 JW 4:406.
9 Faulkner 286.
10 JW 4:401.
11 JW 4:523.
12 Tacitus Histories 5.12, 3–4
13 Goodman (1987) 178
14 JW 6:421.
15 Goodman (1987) 180.

Notes Chapter 11.

1 Dio Cassius Histories lxiii 19.

2 Qualis artifex pereo Suetonius Nero 49.
3 Tacitus Histories 1:27.
4 Suetonius ‘Otho’ 12.
5 JW 5:128ff.
6 Suetonius ‘Vitellius’ 10.
7 ibid.
8 Tacitus Histories 111 67–74.
9 ibid 79–85.
10 JW 4:592–8.
11 JW 4:592–604.
12 Goodman (1987) 180–1.

Notes Chapter 12.

1 Tacitus Histories 5.23.

2 JW 5:47–9.
 N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 1 8 – 1 3 9 161

3 JW 5:66.
4 JW 5:71.
5 JW 5:79–80.
6 JW 5:100.
7 JW 5:103ff.
8 JW 5:375.
9 JW 5:277.
10 JW 5:280.
11 JW 5:350.
12 JW 5:362.
13 JW 5:470–2.
14 JW 5:475.

Notes Chapter 13.

1 JW 5:531.
2 JW 6:9–14.
3 JW 6:16–17.
4 JW 6:86–7.
5 JW 6:97.
6 Known as tmaid, the daily sacrifice of lamb.
7 JW 6:1421–7.
8 JW 6:181–3.
9 From the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus 5th century ad.
10 Rives, J. (2005) ‘Flavian policy and the Jerusalem Temple’ in Edmondson, Mason and Rives
(eds) Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome 147–66.
11 JW 6:271.
12 See Sorek, S.M. (2000) Vows of Valuations Postgraduate Journal Dept. of Classics. University
of Cork Edition 2.
13 JW 6:352.
14 Goodman (1987) 200–1.
15 JW 6:403.
16 See Magness, J. (2002) ‘In the footsteps of the 10th legion’ in Berlin and Overman The First
Jewish Revolt 190–1.

Notes Chapter 14.

1 Life 417–8.
2 JW 7:143–5.
3 JW 7:156–7.
4 Chapman, H.H. (2005) ‘Spectacle in Josephus’ Jewish War’ in Edmondson, Mason and
Rives (eds) Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome 302.
162 N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 4 0 – 1 5 4

5 JW 7:201–4.
6 JW 7:252.
7 JW 7:301.
8 See Yadin, Y. (1966) Masada Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand.
9 Known as conturbernium.
10 JW 7:311–12.
11 JW 7:385–8. Free trans. Sorek.
12 Rajak (2002) 220.
13 ibid 222.

Notes Chapter 15.

1 Berlin, A. (2002) ‘Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee’ in Berlin

and Overman (eds) The First Jewish Revolt 57–73.
2 Syon, D. ibid 134–55.
3 JW 4:10.
4 JW 4:79–80. See Aviam, M. (2002) ‘Yodefat: The archaeology of the first battle’ in Berlin
and Overman (eds) The First Jewish Revolt 131.
5 JW 3:163–5.
6 CIL 6.944 ILS 264.
7 CIL 6 40454a AE 1995 111b.
 Bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES: EDITIONS & TRANSLATIONS CITED

BIBLICAL LITERATURE
Friberg Greek New Testament. Bible, New Revised Standard Version: New
International Bible, all on Bibleworks CD Rom vv 4.0. Eds. Bushell, M. S. and
Tan, M. D. (Big Fork, MS, 1992–1999).
Apocrypha. New Revised Standard Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press 1989).

RABBINIC LITERATURE
Babylonian Talmud. Soncino edn, Hebrew/English (Judaic Classics Library: CD
Rom version 1996).
Mishnah. The Mishnah Upon which the Palestinian Talmud Rests. Trans. Lowe,
W. H. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1883).
Tosefta. Ed. Lieberman, S., 2nd edn (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
1992).

GRAECO-ROMAN ANCIENT LITERATURE

Dio Cassius (1954) Histories. Trans. Long (London: Harvard University Press).
Eusebius (1954) Ecclesiastical History and Martyrs of Palestine. Trans. Lawlor
Vol. 1 (London:SPCK).
Josephus (1997) Antiquitates Judaicae, Bellum Judaicum, Vita, Contra Apionem.
Trans. Thackery, H. St.J. (London: Harvard University Press).
Philo (1991) Works. Trans. Coulson, F. H. (London: Harvard University Press).
Strabo (1959–69) Geography (London: Heinemann).
Suetonius (1989) The Twelve Caesars (Penguin: Harmondsworth).
Tacitus (1990) Histories, Annals of Imperial Rome (London: Harvard University
Press).
164 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

SECONDARY SOURCES
Applebaum, S. (1975) ‘The struggle for soil and the revolt of 66–73ce’. Grets
Israel 12 125–8.
Avi-Yonah, M. (2001) A History of Israel and the Holy Land (London:
Continuum) 149.
Avigad, N. (1980) Discovering Jerusalem (New York: Nelson Publishers).
Aviam, M. (2002) ‘Yodefat: archaeology of the first battle’ in Berlin, A. and
Overman J. (eds) The First Jewish Revolt (London: Routledge). 121–33.
Berlin, A. (2002) ‘Romanization and Anti-Romanization in pre-revolt
Galilee’ in Berlin, A. and Overman, J. (eds) The First Jewish Revolt (London:
Routledge) 57–73.
Berlin, A. and Overman, J. (eds) (2002) The First Jewish Revolt (London:
Routledge).
Bilde, P. (1979) ‘The causes of the Jewish War according to Josephus’. JSJ Vol X.
No 2.
Bond, H. (1998) Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Broshi, M. (1982) ‘The credibility of Josephus’. JJS Vol 33, 379.
Chapman, H. H. (2005) ‘Spectacle in Josephus’ Jewish War’ in Edmondson,
J., Mason. S. and Rives, J. (eds) Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford:
Oxford University Press) 302.
Donaldson, T. (1990) ‘Rural bandits, city mobs and Zealots’. Journal of Jewish
Studies 31, 18–36.
Faulkner, N. (2002) Apocalypse: The Great Jewish Revolt against Rome (Stroud:
Tempus).
Feldman, L.H. and Hata, G. (eds)(1989) Josephus, the Bible and History (USA:
Wayne State University Press).
Gabba, E. (1999) ‘The social, economic and political history of Palestine 63
bce–ce 70’ in The Cambridge History of Judaism: Vol. 3 The Early Roman
Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 141.
Goodman, M. (1987) The Ruling Class of Judaea (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Goodman, M. (2006) Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations
(London: Penguin).
Gutman, S. and Shanks, H. (1979) ‘Gamala: Masada of the North’. Biblical
Archaeology Review 5.1, 12–27.
Horbury, W., Davies, W. D. and Sturdy, J. (eds) Cambridge History of Judaism
Vol. 3 The Early Roman Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Horsley, R. A. (1993) Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance
in Roman Palestine Ch.4, Augsburg, MN: Augsburg Fortress.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 165

Horsley, R. A. (1996) ‘Zealots, the origin, relationship and importance in the

Jewish revolt’. Novum Testamentum XXVIII.2.
Kindler, A. (1974) Coins of the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Keter).
McLaren, J.S. (1991) Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing
of their Land 100 bc–ad 70 (Sheffield: JSOT).
McLaren, J.S. (1998) Turbulent Times?: Josephus and Scholarship in Judaea in
the First Century ce (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Magness, J. (2002) ‘In the footsteps of the 10th legion’ in Berlin, A. M. and
Overman, J. A. The First Jewish Revolt (London: Routledge) 190–1.
Millar, F. (1977) The Emperor in The Roman World (London: Duckworth).
Parente, F. and Sievers J. (eds) (1994) Josephus and the History of the Graeco-
Roman Period (Leiden: Brill).
Rajak, T. (1973)‘Justus of Tiberias’. CQ 23 364–68.
Rajak, T. (rep. 2002) Josephus (London: Duckworth).
Rappaport, U. (1982) ‘John of Gischala – from Galilee to Jerusalem’. JJS 33 479–93.
Rappaport, U. (1992) ‘How Anti Roman was the Galilee?’ in Levine, L. (ed.)
The Galilee in Late Antiquity Ch. 3 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary).
Rhoads, D. M. (1976) Israel in Revolution 6–74 ce (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).
Rives, J. (2005) ‘Flavian policy and the Jerusalem Temple’ in Edmondson, J.,
Mason. S. and Rives, J. (eds) Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford:
Oxford University Press), 147–66.
Roth, C. (1959) ‘The Zealots in the war of 66–73ad’ JSS IV (iv)11.
Roth, C. (1959) ‘Introduction’ The Jewish War (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Trans. Wilkinson.
Schalit, A. (1965) ‘Evidence of an aramaic source in Josephus’ Antiquities of
the Jews’. ASTI, 4, 163–88.
Schürer, E. (rev. 1973) History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark).
Schwarz, S. (1990) Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill).
Schwarz, S. (1994) ‘Josephus in Galilee: Rural patronage and social breakdown’
in E. Paronte and J. Sievers (eds) Josephus and the History of the Graeco-
Roman Period (Leiden: Brill).
Shaw, B. D. (1995) ‘Josephus: Power and responses to it’ Athenaeum 83, 357–90.
Smallwood, E. M. (1981) The Jews under Roman Rule (Lieden: Brill) Chapter 11.
Sorek, S. M. (2000) Vows of Valuations, Postgraduate Journal Dept. of Classics.
University of Cork, Edition 2.
Sorek, S. M. (2002) ‘Render unto Caesar, Pilate and the Temple funds’. Eras
Online Journal, Monash University School of Historical Studies, Edition 4,
December.
Stern, M. (1982) ‘The suicide of Eleazar ben Yair and his men at Masada and
the Fourth Philosophy’. Zion 47 367–79 (HEB).
166 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Syon, D. (2002) ‘Gamala: City of Refuge’ in Berlin, A. M. and Overman, J. A.

(eds) The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology (New York:
Routledge) 139–51.
Thackery, H. St John (1967) Josephus the Man and the Historian (New York:
KTAV Publishing House).
Vermes, G. (1983) Jesus the Jew (Augsberg, MN: Augsburg Fortress).
Wacholder, Ben Zion (1989) ‘Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus’ in Feldman,
L. and Hata, G. (eds) (1989) Josephus the Bible and History (Leiden: Brill).
Yadin, Y. (1966) Masada Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicholson).
 Index

Abraham 10 Antipas 11, 12, 72, 94

Acra 2, 4 Antipater 11
Acrabatene 100 Antipater II 7
Acre 6 Antipatris 10, 58
Actian games 9 Antiquitates Judaicae see Jewish Antiquities
Actium, battle of 9 Antonia, fortress 9, 29, 33, 47, 50, 64, 49, 116,
Acts 32, 34, 42 117, 123, 126, 127 128, 130
Adoraim 7 platform 123
Aelius Sejanus suicide mission 127
anti-Semitism 30 towers 127, 129
Against Apion 20, 21, 22, 40 Antonius Primus 111, 113
agmen quadratum 57 Antonius Silo 85
Agrippa (political figures sharing this name) Antony 7, 8, 9
12, 28, 31, 34, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 60, 65, Apharaima by Accaron 4
66, 67, 68, 84, 86, 115, 116 Apollonius 2
Agrippinum 10 Aramaic language 20, 129
Akiva 147 archaelogy
Albinus 12, 32, 35 Gamala 89
Alexander Balas 4 archaeologists 81, 149, 151
Alexander Jannaeus 5, 44 Archelaus 11
Alexandra 6 archers 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 121, 122
Alexandria 18, 53, 111, 113, 114, 146 Arches of Titus 153–4
Alexandrium 6 Aretas 6
Ammanthus 7 Arimathaea 4
Ananias 34, 50, 52, 126 Aristeus 126
Ananus 17, 34, 35, 42, 59, 60, 61, 64, 70, 91, aristocracy 110, 126, 125, 134
95, 96 Aristolobus 6, 7, 142
execution 97 Artapanus 22
Ananus b. Bagadatus 101 artillery 79
Ananus b. Jonathan 57 Asalon 91
Anatolia 103 Asamon 55
Anicetus 103 Ascalon 9, 61, 91, 115
Antigonus 8, 142 Asochis 70
Antioch 6, 55, 113 assassination
Antiochos 116 Claudius 48
Antiochus 2 political 34, 42
Antiochus Epiphanes 4 athletics 1
Antiochus II 1 Augustus 7, 9, 11
Antiochus IV 1 Temple at Paneion 10
death 3 auxiliaries 143
Antiochus IV of Commagene 55 Azotus 92
Antiochus V Eupator 3
Antiochus VI Sidetes 4 Bacchides 3, 4
168 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

baggage train 121 Christians 20

Balkans 113 Church Fathers 20
bandits 34, 39, 69, 89, 99, 142 circular count 82
Bannus the aesthetic 15 circumvallation 143
barbarians 20 Circus Maximus 154
Batavi tribe 103 cisterns 81
revolt 110 civil war 44
battering rams 86, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, Civilis 103
127 Claudius 12, 34, 48
Beirut 115 assassination 48
Bellum Judaicum see Jewish War Claudius Macer 106
Ben Sirach 150 Cleopatra 7, 8, 9, 98
Berenice 47, 49, 51 client kings 55, 115
Berytus 10 coinage, coins 30, 60, 102, 147
Bet Madras 150 Colosseum 154
Beth Horon 2, 42, 56, 58, 61, 91 commentarii 22
Bethi-Basi 4 Corbulo 106
Beth-Shean family 4 Corinth canal 86
Beth-zur 3 Corinthian gate 131
Bezetha 56, 60 corn supply 67, 115
Bezetha Hill 117, 125 Court of Israelites 131
Bible 22, 46 Court of Priests 131
Bible scrolls 150 Court of Women 50, 131
boiling oil 80 Cremona 111, 112, 114
burial practices 125 sack 111
Burnt House 153 crucifixion 32, 47, 121, 125, 126, 140
Byblos 10 Jesus of Nazareth 30, 31
Cumanus 27, 33, 34
Caecina 107, 109, 110, 111 Cuspius Fadus 32
Caesarea 9, 11, 29, 34, 43, 44, 46, 47, 55, 56, Cypros 10
57, 84, 89, 91, 112, 115, 137 Roman garrison 52
massacre 52 Cyprus 147
synagogue 46 copper mines 9
Caesarea at Paneas 9 Cyrene 147
Caesarea Maritima 45 disturbances 146
Caesarea Philippi 84
Caesinnius Gallus 55, 56 Dabarittha 67
Caligula 11, 12, 28, 31, 48 daily sacrifice 129
Calpurnius 105 Damascus 4, 6, 7, 10
Camp of the Assyrians 122 Daniel, prophecy 40
Capito 47 Danubian legions 109, 110, 111, 113, 114
Capitoline Hill 111 David 5, 116
Capitoline Jupiter, Temple of 135, 138 Day of Atonement 29
Cartimandua 103 Dead Sea 5, 6, 8, 98, 115, 140, 150
cavalry 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 116, 117, 121, 130 Decapolis 7, 53, 61
Ceagiras 124 Deir Qaruh 152
Celsus 108 Demetrius 4, 22
centurions 80 Deuteronomy 150
Cerealis 84 Diaspora Jews 31, 147
Cestius Gallus 16, 36, 45, 47, 48, 55, 56–61, tolerance towards 28
100 Dio Cassius 109
defeat 59, 63, 64 Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Chanukah 3 Antiquities of the Romans 21
 INDEX 169

Dionysus 1 food supply 125

disease 126 Forest of Jardes 140
Domitia 19 Fourth Philosophy 28, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43
Domitian 19, 111, 114 ideals 40
Domus Aurea 108 freedom fighters 147
Druids 105
Drusilla 34 Gaba 9
Gabara 75
earthworks 153 Gabinius 7
eastern armies 111 Gadara 9
Egypt 12, 111, 147 Gaius (Caligula) 31
annexation 9 Galba 106, 107, 108, 109, 112
grain supply 113, 115 murder 108
River of 5 Galileans 101
trade routes 92 conflict with the Samaritans 27, 33
Eleasa 3 Galilee 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 25, 28, 43, 53, 55, 56,
Eleazar b. Ananais 41, 42, 50, 52, 61, 64, 71 63, 64, 71, 72, 75, 78, 83, 84, 85–92, 93,
Eleazar b. Gion 96 142, 151
Eleazar b. Simon 57, 59, 60, 61, 94, 99, 101 defeat 89
Eleazar b. Yair 24, 40 52, 89, 142, 144, 145, destruction by Roman forces 70
146 eastern 48
suicide pact 144 fortified towns 80
Eljakim (Alkimos) 3 Sea of 65
Emmaus 2 Gallia narbonensis 109
empire of the Gauls 105 Gallic chieftains 105
Engeddi 98 Gallus see Cestius Gallus
Eniachin (clan) 94 Gamala 17, 61, 83, 86, 88
ensalvement 76 archaeology 89
Epaphroditus 21 blockade 87
Essenes 15, 150 excavations 151, 153
Euphrates 2, 8 garrisoning 86
Evil Kingdom 40 siege 88
extremists 39 suicide 152
eyewitness accounts 21 Ganath Saul 116
Ezechial 150 Gaul 112
rebellion 106
Fabius Valens 109 Gaulanitis 61, 86
famine 32, 88, 101, 125, 126, 134 Gaza 9, 11, 115
Feast of Dedication 3 Genesis 150
Feast of the Tabernacles 29, 56 Gennath Gateway 117
Feast of the Unleavened Bread 119, 125 Gentiles 3, 24, 27, 28, 34, 43
Felix 16, 34, 45 Gerasa 61
insensitivity 34 Gerizim 83
fenugreek 80 German legions 108
Feuchtwanger, Leon 20 Germany 112
firebrands 121 Gerodium, fortress 9
Flaccus 107 Gessius Florus 36, 40, 45, 46, 47
Flavian dynasty 114, 120, 132 Gezer 2
Flavius Josephus see Josephus Gibeon 58
Flavius Sabinus 108–9 Gilead, Jews of 3
Flavius Silva 141 Gischala 66, 67, 69, 83, 86, 89, 90, 93
Florus 12, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50, 57 Golan 9
Fonteius Capito 106 Golan Heights 83, 86
170 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Gophna 3 Icelus 107

Gorgias 2, 3 Idumaea 3, 7, 53, 61, 91, 92, 98, 100, 142
Gorion b. Joseph 94 Idumaeans 42, 96, 97, 99, 101, 121
grain prices 107 Idumenaea 115
grain stocks 125 Ihsmael 34
burning 101 independent Jewish state 44
grain supply 113 infantry 79, 88, 128
Great Plain 87 intelligence gathering 120
Greek culture 1 Israel 149
guerilla fighters 147
guerilla tactics 120 JA see Jewish Antiquities
guerilla units 117 Jacob b. Sosas 99
guerilla warfare 122 Jaffa 3, 4, 7, 8
James b. Sosas 96
Hadisdeans 3 James, brother of Jesus 34
haggadah 22 Jamnia 3, 47, 92, 115
halakah 22 battle of 4
Hamas 99 Jannaeus 5, 7
Hasideans 2, 5 maritime policy 5
Hasmonean dynasty 5, 22 Japha 80, 83
Hebron 10 Jason 1
Helios 106 javelins 86, 95
Hellenic society 1 Jericho 7
Hellenism 7 Jerome 20
pagan 10 Jerusalem 7, 43, 46, 56, 59, 72, 75, 90, 115–24,
Hellenization 5, 10 125–35
Hellenized Jews 44 battlements 121
Herod Agrippa I (a.k.a. Julius Marcus circumvallation 125
Agrippa) 11, 48, 68, 89, 94, 95–6, 112, 117 destruction 22
as mediator 48 excavations 149, 153
Herod Agrippa II 49 First Wall 117, 120, 123, 124
Herod Antipas 11, 65, 67 food supply 125, 126
Herod of Chalcis 48 planned assault 76
Herod the Great 22, 44, 45, 50, 98, 116, 140, Second Wall 117, 120, 122
141, 142, 151 sewers 134, 140
Herodian party 11 siege 105, 127
Herodium 100, 105, 115 Third Wall 117, 118, 120, 122
fortress 99, 139 Jesus (priest) 134
Herodotus 21 Jesus b. Gamala 70
Heshbon 4, 9 execution 97
Hezbullah 99 Jesus b. Gamalas 70
Hezekiah 142 Jesus b. Gamaliel 60, 61
High Priests 1, 29, 39, 41, 47, 59, 94, 101, 135 Jesus b. Gamlas 94–5
Hinnom Valley 117, 120, 134 Jesus b. Sapphias 68, 69, 84
Hippicus 60 Jesus of Nazareth
Tower 60, 135 crucifixion 30, 31
Hippos 9 Jewish Antiquities (JA) 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32,
historiography 21 33, 34, 35, 39, 43, 53
Holy of Holies 131 Jewish community 27
hostages 134 Jewish history 23
house of study (Bet Madras) 150 Jewish Law 65, 67
Hyrcania, fortress 7, 8, 9 Jewish nation, unified 40
Jewish nationalism 11
 INDEX 171

Jewish religious customs 29 portrayal of Herod 22

Jewish state 39 problems in his accounts 39
independent 44 reliability 23, 25
Jewish Transjordan (the Perea) 11 sources 21–4
Jewish War (JW) 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, speeches 23
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 53, 63, 64, 69, 71, surrender to Vespasian 81–2
73, 83, 153, 154 ‘Josephus count’ 18
Jews Joshua 22
Egyptian 42 Jotapata 17, 19, 71, 91, 151
Hellenized 44 excavations 152–3
Orthodox 44 human remains 153
Jews of Gilead 3 siege 75–84
Jews of the Council (Sanhedrin) 47 Jubilees 100, 150
Jezreel valley 7, 9 Judaea 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 28, 29, 31,
Joazar 17 34, 36, 39, 48, 53, 61, 62, 72, 92, 99, 105,
Johannan b. Zakkai 18 111, 115, 116, 126, 139, 142, 143, 154
John ben Levi see John of Gischala campaigns 112, 115
John Hyrcanus I 4 civil war 93–103
John Hyrcanus II 6 revolt 106
John of Gischala (John ben Levi) 17, 66, 67, Roman campaign 102
68, 69, 72, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100, 101, Judah I Aristolobus 5
119, 121, 128, 132, 137, 138, 142 Judaism 2, 4, 5, 20, 31, 48
as portrayed by Josephus 71 Judas Maccabaeus 2, 5
John son of Dorcas 94 Judas of Galilee 28, 29, 32, 40
John the Baptist 20 Judges 22
John the Essene 61 Julian 128
Jonathan 34 Julius Alexander 32
Jonathan (High Priest) 141 assassination 7
Jonathon 3, 4, 5 campaign in Alexandria 7
Joppa 55, 84, 91, 92, 115 Julius Civilis 110
Jordan 3 Julius Tiberius Alexander 111
Jordan (river) 4 Julius Vindex 106, 107
Joseph b. Gorion 59 Jupiter Capitolinus, Temple of
Josephus (Flavius Josephus) 10, 11, 12, siege 111
15–25, 27–37, 39–44, 49, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, Justus b Pistus 68
63, 66, 68, 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82–4, Justus of Tiberias 19, 27, 63
90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 102, 113, 114, 115, JW see Jewish War
116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 128, 132,
134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, Khazars 20
147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 Kidron Valley 117, 118, 120
accounts of Pilate
accuracy 23 Laberius Maximus 140
accusations of treachery 83 Laco 107
Against Apion 20 League of Ten Cities (Decapolis) 7
attitude to John 70 Lebonah 2
biblical scholarship 22 Legatio 30
biblical sources 23 legionaries 118, 119, 122, 131, 133, 137
capture by Vespasian 70 legions 86, 87
death of patron 19 Danubian 109, 110, 111, 113, 114
domestic life 18–19 German 108
Flavian patrons 23 Levantine coast 115
inconsistency 16 Levias 94
narrative style 71 Leviticus 46, 150
172 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Libya, Governor of 146 Mount Gerizim 91

Licianus 108 Mount of Olives 117, 118, 121, 130
Life 20, 24, 63, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72, 73, 83 Mount Scopus 57, 117, 118
Lower City 50, 133 Mount Tabor 83, 86, 87, 88
Lower Galilee 83 Mount Zion 116
Lucan 105 Mucianus 111, 112, 113
Lucilius Bassus 139–41 mutinies 126
death 141
Lydda 2, 4, 56 Nabataeans 7, 116
Lysias 2, 3 Nain 100
nationalism 28
M. Antonius Julianus 116 Nebuchadnezzar, dream 23
Maccabean rebellion 2 Nero 16, 18, 21, 31, 36, 45, 46, 48, 103, 106,
Maccabean war 10 107
Maccabees 22, 44, 59 assissination plot 105
Machaerus 115, 105, 140 death 112
fortress 52, 99, 139 extravagance 105
Magnesia 1 portraits 108
Marcellus, Theatre of 154 suicide 107
Mariamme Tower 135 Neronias 49
Mariamne 8 Netiras 79
Marius 6 New City 117, 120, 122
Mark Antony 8 New Testament 12
Masada 8, 24, 40, 43, 52, 61, 88, 89, 98, 100, Nicanor 2, 3
105, 115, 141, 144, 150, 151 Nicolaus of Damascus 22
blockade 143 Niger the Peraean 61
circumvallation 143 Nile Delta 115
excavations 142, 143, 149–51, 153 Numbers 41
fortress 8, 9, 50, 98, 99, 139, 142, 146
suicide 89, 152 oath of loyalty 107, 109, 110, 111
mass graves 89 Octavian 7, 8, 9
mass suicide 88, 150, 152 oil 66, 67
massacres 53, 76, 90, 91, 132 onager 79
Caesarea 52 Onias, Temple of the Egyptian Jews 146
Mathathias Antigonus 7 Onias IV 1
Mathathias the Hasmonean 2 Ophel 101
Matthias 126 Ophel Hill 116, 117
Matthias ben Theophilus 94 oral tradition 22
Medeba 4 Orthodox Jews 44
Mediterranean Sea 4 ostrakon 150
Megassarus 124 Otho 106, 108, 109, 110, 112
Menahem 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 57, 61, 142 suicide 109
murder 42, 52
Menalaus 1, 2 Palestine 1, 10, 139, 147
Messiah 23 unification 5
Michmash 4 Paneion, Temple of Augustus 10
Misenum 140 Panias (Caesarea Philippi) 49
missiles 80 Papyron 6
Mithridates VI of Pontus 5 Parthia (Persia) 8
war against Rome 6 Passover 33, 72
Modein 2 Patriarchs 22
Moses 22, 40 patronage 72
Mount Carmel 82 patronal system, breakdown 72
 INDEX 173

Paul 34 Quadratus 33, 34

accusers 34 purge 34
Pax Romana 135, 140 Quintilius Varus 29
peasants 55, 72, 76, 91, 99 Quirinus, census 32
Peloppenesian War 27 Qumran 150
Pentateuch 22
Peraea 7, 9, 48, 53, 60, 91, 140 Ragba 5
Persia 2, 3, 92 Ravenna 140
Petrarch 20 rebel fighters 133
Petronius 31 rebellion in Gaul 106
knowledge of Judaism 31 rebels 120, 125
Petronius Turpillianus 107 Red Sea 4
Phaesal Tower 135 Redemption of Israel 147
Phanni 94 refugees 140
Pharisees 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 40 religious fanaticism 28
moderates 64 religious fanatics 39
Phasael 7 religious sects 15
suicide 8 Rhine legions 106
Phasaelis 10 Rhineland, western 105
Philadelphia 6 Rhodes 9
Philip 12 River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) 5
Philip Herodes 11 Roman Empire ix, 9, 11, 27, 151
Philip the Tetrarch 48 Rome
Phillip 79 Arches of Titus 153–4
Phillip son of Jacimus 89 civil war 105–14
Philo 12, 22, 32 grain supply 113
Legatio 12, 30 Royal Palace 116, 117, 123, 133, 134
Phineas b. Clusoth 96 siege 50–2
Photius 21 Rufus 106, 109
Pilate see Pontius Pilate Ruth 22
Placidus 75, 76, 88
plain of Sharon 92 Sabazios 1
platforms 124, 128, 130, 131, 134, 143 Sabbath 51, 90
Polemo II of Pontus 103 Sabinus 107, 127
political assassination 34, 42 execution 111
poll tax 140 Sacred Way 137
Polybius 22, 76 sacrifices 137
Pompey 6, 7, 154 Saddok 40
Pontius Pilate 12, 29, 30, 31, 33 Sadducees 8, 11, 15
Poppaea Sabina 16, 105, 106 Sallust 21
statues 108 Salome Alexandra 5
Porcius Festus 34 Samaria 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 34, 48, 83, 91
praetorians 110 peasants 91
Preacher of Lies 42 Samaritans 33, 34, 83, 91
Proclus 106 conflict with the Galileans 27, 33
procurators 27, 28, 29, 32 Sameas 10
Psalms 150 Samosata 8
Psephinus Tower 117, 121 Sanhedrin (Jews of the Council) 33, 47, 65,
Ptolemais 55, 75, 84 135
Ptolemais (Acco) 70 Scaurus 6
Ptolemais (Acre) 8 Scythopolis 7, 84, 87, 89
Ptolemy 2 Sea of Galilee 83
Ptolemy V 1 naval battle 86
174 THE JEWS AGAINST ROME

Sebaste 10, 46 Syphas 94

Seleucid dynasty 1, 3, 4 Syria 7, 8, 53, 111, 113, 115
Seleucid Empire 3 Greek community 27
Seleucus IV 3 Jewish community 27
Seleucus Nicanor 66 Legate 35
Seneca trade routes 92
fall of government 105
suicide 105 Tacitus 12, 13, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 101, 106,
Sepphoris 7, 8, 17, 56, 65, 66, 75 115, 116
Seron 2 dislike of Felix 34
Sextus Cerealis 129 Histories 12
Sharon Plain 91 Talmud 18, 50
shekel 60 Tarichaeae 66, 67, 68, 70, 83, 84, 85
Sicarii 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 98, 144 tax arrears 49
Sidon 10 taxes 52
siege engines 79, 126, 127, 144 Temple 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 16, 29, 31, 33, 34, 43,
siege platforms 86, 87 48, 49, 59, 64, 72, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 119,
siege warfare 77 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 139, 154
Silas the Babylonian 61 aristocracy 11
Silva 143 attack on 30
Simon b. Cathas 99 cult 60
Simon b. Gamaliel 41, 69, 70, 94 daily sacrifice 50
Simon b. Giora 42, 61, 99–102, 115, 118, 119, enclosure 56
121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 133, 134, 137, 138, Inner Court 131, 132
142 Outer Court 132
execution 138 platform 123
Simon b. Kokhba 147 plundering 133
Simon b. Thaceas 96 rebuilding 10
Simon the Idumaean 99 ritual 147
Sinai 115 treasures 133, 134, 138, 139
slave dealers 86 treasury 30, 46, 53
slavery 140 vaults 119
slingers 79, 80 Temple Mount 9, 29, 51, 52, 61, 94, 95, 97,
Sohaemus of Emesa 55, 115, 116 101, 116, 123, 125, 128, 130, 133, 142
Song of the Sabbath Sacrifices 150 assault 130–1
Sosius 154 Temple of Augustus at Paneion 10
Sporus 110 Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, siege 111
square column (agmen quadratum) 57 Temple of Peace 139, 154
Stoicism 16 Temple of the Egyptian Jews, Onias 146
stonemasons 77 Temple tax 133, 135
Strabo 12, 22 Tephthaeus 124
Strato’s Tower 9 terrorism 28, 32, 98, 138
street fighting 45 terrorists 39
Suetonius 12, 18, 82, 109, 112 Testimonium Flavianum 20
suicide 18, 81, 83, 89, 153 testudo 80
Gamala 152, Theatre of Marcellus 154
Masada 152 Thucydides 21, 27
mass 88, 89, 150, 152 Tiberias 17, 48, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 83, 84,
Nero 107 86
Otho 109 Tiberium 29, 30
Seneca 105 Tiberius 12, 29, 30, 31
suicide pact 82 Tiberius Alexander 12, 32, 113
Sulla 6 Tiberius Julius Alexander 116
 INDEX 175

Tigellinus 105, 106 blockade 77

Tigranes I of Armenia 5, 6 council of war 76
Titus 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 69, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, Victor (battering ram) 122
88, 89, 90, 91, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, Vinius 107
118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, Vita see Life
129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138 Vitellius 107, 109, 111
Torah 15, 46 death 112
tortoise formation 80 downfall 114
trade routes 92 eating habits 109–10
Trajan 83 insensitivity 110
Transjordan 5, 48 military insecurity 110
tribute 49 negotiations with Sabinus 111
Tripolis 10 rebellion 109
Tryphon 4 Voltaire 20
Tyrannius Priscus 57
Tyre 10 Wadi el-Arish 5
Tyropoeon Valley 95, 116, 131, 133 War see Jewish War
war party 40
unemployment 72 western gate 121
Upper City 50, 133
Upper Galilee 83 Yeshua b. Daneus 35
uprisings 32 Yodefat, mass burial cistern 89

Valens 109, 110 Zacariah 50

Varus 11 Zacharia b. Baruch, show trial 97
Ventidius Cumanus 32 Zacharias 96
Venutius 103 Zadok 29
Verginius Rufus 106, 107 Zealots 11, 24, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 59, 65, 70,
Vespasian 12, 17, 18, 22, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 89, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 119,
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 123, 137–47, 150
95, 102, 105, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, barricade 95
120, 139 Zeus 1