The Jewish Wars: Conflicts of Faith and Patriotism

THE JEWISH WARS: CONFLICTS OF
FAITH AND PATRIOTISM

by Sandra R. Bree

It was called by Josephus in the first century a.d. “the greatest war not only of our time, but so far as accounts have reached us, well nigh of all that ever broke out between cities or nations.” The estimated number killed was 1,100,000; we are told that 97,000 captives were sold into slavery. (1) It was a war that lasted from a.d. 66-70 but its causes lie much deeper in Roman provincial history. The Jewish- Roman Wars were the final culmination of the events of the previous sixty years, a period in which the religious devotion of the Jews clashed with national loyalty.

Judea had been an independent nation-state since it won its free­dom in 142 b.c. It had been ruled by Jewish rulers as far back as the time of Julius Caesar. Herod I (37-34 b.c.) was recognized by the Roman government as “King of the Jews.” He nurtured a friendship with Augustus and therefore was friend and ally of the Roman people. Herod had unlimited freedom within Judea; he extended the borders, built cities, and kept Judea prosperous and peaceful, despite heavy taxes. (2)

In 4 b.c. Herod died and his kingdom was divided up among his three sons; after ten years, one son, Archelaus, a cruel tryant, was ejected and banished by Augustus. The citizens of Judea then sent a contingent to Rome to ask that Judea be ruled by a Syrian governor. Instead, Augustus officially annexed Judea as a Roman province and put it under a Roman procurator. This change from the rule of native princes to procurators of the equestrian order seems to be the real starting point in the development of Judaeo-Roman strife. (3)

Jewish society at the time of annexation was separated into two groups. The upper class of wealthy landholders who monopolized the high religious positions was called the Saduccees. Their religious beliefs, it is important to note, were solely in written law; if any law was not included in the Scriptures they wanted no part of it. They denied divine intervention in human affairs; to them, their God was not concerned with people in everyday life. The Saduccees completely cooperated with the rules and government of the Roman procurators; their beliefs having developed from their power and material security, the Saduccees were agreeable to the Roman rule. (4)

The other important faction of Jews was the Pharisees, members of the lower priesthood and the lower classes in general. Their religious beliefs revolved around the idea of Messianism. Rejecting any idea

Sandra R. Bree (’68) is a University Scholar and an active member of the Huntington Hill Historical Society. After her graduation she plans to earn a master’s degree in library science.

of mortal kingship, they strongly believed in the hopeful coming of the Messiah. They refused to swear allegiance to anyone else; the only acceptable state to them was the theocratic state. To the Pharisees, loyalty was to God and to Him alone; “no other God had been from the outset the God only of his people as Jahve, and no one had so remained without destruction of time and place. (5)

Their main concern being the collection of taxes and the mainte­nance of peace, the procurators controlled all local authorities, both civil and religious. Therefore, under orders from the emperor, the procurators made attempts, often half-hearted, at some form of re­ligious toleration. The Jews were exempted from military service and were given the Sabbath privilege. Coins were minted without the usual images of the emperor, in deference to the law against idol worship. No non-Jew was allowed within the Temple at Jerusalem, and troops did not march through Jerusalem on campaigns—they made other routes in respect to the high priests. The Sanhedrin or “Council of Seventy,” the Jewish council of elders which was the highest spiritual and secular representative for the Jews in Jerusalem, was allowed to have a continued, if limited, amount of power in the form of a common civic council. (6)

The basic mistake of the Roman procurators was that they did not hold in check the Pharisees’ ever increasing Messianism, nor did they bother with the internal affairs that did not directly concern them. This oversight was to be the procurators’ fatal error. More than superficial understanding was necessary with the Jews, “touchy, irasci­ble and ready to flare up at the least provocation, and frequently taking offense at what must have seemed to a Roman, unversed in the intricacies of law, the most frivolous trifles.” (7)

The procurators disturbed this delicate situation the minute they had control of the province. Upon the arrival of the first procurator, a census of people and property was demanded for tax purposes. The Jews resented this immediately and heavy rioting in Jerusalem fol­lowed. The Pharisees instigated violence, for they refused to recognize a temporal ruler; moreover, the financial burden placed upon the lower classes was quite heavy. All that Rome required of her subjects was payment of taxes, but in taking the census they realized that the Jews had an “innate aversion to being counted,” and the Jews also felt their complete subjugation to Roman rule. (8)

Out of the discontent of the Pharisees arose a new faction in Judea. It was begun by Judas the Galilean, who, imitating the Mac- cabean revolt against the Seleucids, succeeded in arousing a new extremist party made up of patriots and religious fanatics—the Zealots. Coming from the Hebrew word kanaiim, literally meaning zealous, these people “agreed in all other respects with the opinion of the Pharisees, except that they had a passion for liberty that was almost unconquerable, since they were convinced that God alone was their leader and master.” Originating among the common people, the Zeal­ots were rabble-rousers in the streets and preached war against the

Romans. They even attacked fellow Jews who would not participate. In their belief solely in the kingdom of God, they believed that the coming of the Messiah could be hastened by action—armed opposi­tion to Roman rule. Their first united action was their opposition to the census. (9)

As time went on, discontent grew on both sides. During the administration of the procurator Pilate (26-36) the Temple funds were used for building an aqueduct, and troops brought in imperial images of the Emperor Tiberius. Any people resisting the soldiers were roughly handled. Later, the Emperor Caligula (37-41), believing himself divine, revoked all toleration of Jews established by Augustus. He order Petronius, governor of Syria, to erect a statue of him in the Temple at Jerusalem. Caligula was ultimately dissuaded by Petronius and Herod Agrippa, son of the last king of Judea, but the attempt at imposing idol worship on the Jews aroused even greater indignation, especially on the part of the Zealots. (10)

In a.d. 41, when Claudius, Caligula’s successor, was emperor, he appointed Herod Agrippa “king” of the northeast districts of Judea. This was a temporary appeasement for the Jews, who felt more secure under Jewish rule, as they considered gentile rule an outrage to their own religion. But Agrippa offended his distant protector in some ways, as in strengthening the walls of Jerusalem, which he was for­bidden to do. When he died suddenly in a.d. 44, the procurator Cuspius Fadus entered Jerusalem and reestablished Roman rule. Within a year the nomination of the high priest and control of the Temple treasury, formerly in the power of the King Agrippa, were under the direction of the procurator. Individual abuses continued; and as the Jews failed to realize their impotence against Rome, trifles became reasons for great dissatisfaction. By 48, under the procurator­ship of Ventidus Cumanus, riots broke out when Roman legionnaires on police duty drew the accusation of brutality. (11)

By this time the Zealot partisan activity had greatly increased. An extreme group, called the Sicarii because of the short daggers they bore, were out terrifying the countryside and forcibly inducting con­verts. (12)

The final impetus to the Jerusalem revolt was the outbreak of insurrection in Caesarea, the place that had become the home ruling base for the procurators when they took over. There, in a.d. 38, a fight between Syrian and Jewish inhabitants had caused the emperor to deny the Jews their citizenship in this city founded by Herod. This decision had led to sporadic street fights, and the Roman authorities finally pushed the Jews out of the town. The governor finally forced them to return on August 6, 66, where they were slain in mass street battles by the gentiles. The news spread to Jerusalem; “now powers were unchained that they [authorities] were no longer able to control.” Just prior to this event, Gessius Florus, procurator in Judea, attempted an insurrection to avoid impeachment due to his own poor administra­tion. Despite the failure of his plan, he disregarded all warnings to restrain his troops and sent them to Jerusalem to terrorize and pillage. At this moment, the news of the Caesarean outbreak reached Jeru­salem. (13)

Upon hearing of the slaughter in Caesarea, the mob strength in Jerusalem grew; the Zealots, now in control, slaughtered the few Roman soldiers who were in Jerusalem. Everyone gradually became the victim of a spreading rage, one that had been fitfully brewing for over forty years. The moderates tried to keep the fanatics down; they even asked help from the Romans in Caesarea, but received none. The mob then broke into the palace and killed all the Romans there. At this stage the insurrection was still just a mob action that “could have been stifled with comparative ease if the Roman commanders had kept their heads.” But the procurator Gessius Florus and his troops lost their nerve and began a mass retreat. This was the signal for mass rebellion that swept over all Judea and on to Galilee. Cestus Gallus the Syrian legate, also gave up the seige and retreated to Antioch; the Jews thus became confident in their first victory and began a war that was to last for some three more years. The Jews of Palestine were fighting the whole Roman Empire. (14)

When the news of the Jerusalem uprising reached Rome, Nero, who was emperor at the time, conferred a special maius imperium (absolute control) over Syria and then appointed T. Flavius Vespasi- anus as head of the Roman army to fight in Palestine. Vespasian was an imperial legate, and despite his seeming expendability he was a prudent man and a wise soldier. (15)

Vespasian had been campaigning in the East and had arrived in Antioch in the winter of 66. All winter long he gathered his army; by the spring of 67 he had over 50,000 men, which included two legions of the West, left over from the Parthian war, and also the forces of four client kingdoms. (16)

In the spring of 67 he began his campaign. Vespasian’s first move was to subdue Galilee. In the first town he attacked, Zippori, the Jews were frightened and immediately asked for a truce and protec­tion from the avenging Zealots. The Roman offensive throughout the campaign was neither brilliant nor rapid; the Zealots did not attack any towns that had Roman assistance, refused to engage in open-field battle, but still managed to exercise terror over the citizens. Vespasian then turned south, conquering towns there and proceeding to Jotapala, where the historian Josephus was the Jewish defender. Josephus defended the town for 47 days, but in July of 67 the city finally fell. The Romans entered the city and massacred over 40,000 Jews. Josephus hid with friends in a cistern; each one stabbed himself to death, except Josephus who instead surrendered to Vespasian. (17) Being aware of the advantageous situation, he returned to head­quarters with Vespasian where, to ingratiate himself, he predicted the commander’s rise to imperial power. For this encouragement his compatriots looked upon him as a common traitor. (18)

Vespasian then continued his campaign. He seized and captured other Galilean towns under the rule of Agrippa II, who had even given full cooperation to the Romans. By October the last Galilean stronghold had surrendered; the Galilean campaign was successfully over for the Romans just as winter set in. With the collapse of Galilee, Zealot leaders like Johanan of Gischala had fled to Jerusalem. There they rallied for support, undermining the Sanhedrin and Saduccee leaders to the extent that the Zealots were attacked in their Temple stronghold. The city now became divided between “the good patriots, who were at the same time for civic order, and the still better patriots who, partly in fanatical excitement, partly from delight in mob riot, wished to bring about and turn to account a reign of terror.” The Zealots succeeded in getting control. (19)

Such was the rapidly worsening situation within Jerusalem as Vespasian set out on his second campaign in the spring of 68 with the purpose of isolating Judea. He occupied the Trans-Jordanian territory, including the important strongholds of Gadara and Gerasa. His troops headed south from Caesarea, cutting Judea off from the sea by occupy­ing coastal towns. Then he traveled on, constantly victorious, to Emmaus and Jericho in the Jordan valley and up to Samaria in the north. By the summer of 68 all Judea had been conquered except for Jerusalem, now completely surrounded by the Romans. (20)

At this very moment, with the seige of Jerusalem about to begin, the news of Nero’s death reached Vespasian; therefore, de jure, Vespasian’s mandate became void. He suspended operations in order to wait for orders from the new emperor. In Rome, meanwhile, rival factions and pretenders made attempts for the throne. Vespasian patiently awaited the decision, taking advantage of the internecine struggles in Jerusalem. Finally in July 69 he was triumphant; he was proclaimed emperor by the legions of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria; he then left for Rome and appointed his son Titus to the command of the Palestine campaign. (21)

As soon as Vespasian had stopped his campaign, civil war had flared among three rival factions in Jerusalem; “moderates and ex­tremists came to open blows; on the war front the resistance of the moderates became not more than lukewarm.” (22) The strife among the Zealot factions was ever increasing; the strength of Johanan of Gischala’s reign was decreasing; the new Zealot leader, Simon bar Giora, rose up, and the people acclaimed him their leader and deliv­erer. Simon attacked Johanan with an army prepared for this occasion; within the Temple, a third faction, led by Eleazar be Shimon, was also fighting against Johanan. The amount of internal struggle was great. The Zealots had defeated the moderates, and daily battles of the Zealots against each other occurred. However, their one unity lay in their belief and hatred of the common enemy; and thus, by the arrival of the Romans early in May, the factions united for their com­mon defense against the Romans. (23)

Titus began his seige, and within fifteen days the Romans had broken through the third wall of Jerusalem and entered the city through the lower quarter. He then continued his battle over each line of fortification; the second wall was attacked, and the defenders re­treated to the higher city. Titus then offered a truce through Josephus, but the insurgents rejected any peace moves. The Romans now block­aded the city and completely isolated it from any food supplies; famine raged through Jerusalem: “the recklessness of the insurgents kept pace only with the famine, and both horrors daily burst out in more furious flame.” (24) The siege continued for over a month; Titus finally assaulted the upper city and at last took and destroyed the final fortification—Antonia Tower. The final battle was now to take place within the Temple confines, while the Romans were attacking the Temple gate. Finally, one Roman soldier, acting independently, hurled a burning brand into the Temple and thus set it afire.(25) The fire spread through the Temple, and on the tenth of Ab (September 6), 70, the Temple collapsed in flames. With the destruction of the Temple, national downfall had occurred because the Temple had been the Jewish symbol of national and religious unity and strength. (26)

Titus ordered the remaining rebels to surrender; they refused, but the last resistance was finally defeated about a month later (eighth of Elul), and the remaining insurgents were taken prisoner to Rome with Titus. “The bloody work had lasted five months; the sword and the arrow, and still more, famine, had claimed countless victims; the Jews had killed everyone so much as suspect of deserting, and had forced women and children in the city to die of hunger; the Romans just as pitilessly put to the sword the captives or crucified them.” (27)

The war now over, Titus triumphantly returned to Rome with Josephus and the remaining prisoners. The Arch of Titus was con­structed shortly thereafter in honor of this victory. Immediately provincial policy toward Judea was changed; several towns were colonized with pagans, and all land was declared the emperor’s private domain. Roman control over the economy was tightened; the Jews were forced to pay a new tax: the focus judaicus, paid to the Temple of Jupiter in the Roman capitol instead of the Temple of Jerusalem as formerly done. Thus the Jews were now identified as a separate and rebellious people, and developed as a totally alien element within the Roman empire. Internally, the Jews lost all power of self-government; the high priesthood and the Sanhedrin, supreme head and chief authority, disappeared. Jerusalem was left lying in ruins. (28)

Even after the termination of the war, Zealot rebellion continued, led by the Galilean Eleazar ben Yair. He and a band of followers held out against the Romans for three years, in the fortress at Masada by the Dead Sea. Finally, the Romans under the governorship of Flavius Silva seized their defenses; the remaining insurgents killed their chil­dren, their wives, and themselves, rather than fall into Roman hands. (29)

Thus ended the Jewish Wars. Who was really responsible for a war costing over a million lives, lasting over seven years, and whose results caused the complete suppression of an entire people within the Roman Empire? What was the crucial factor that precipitated the war? Clashes of authority were inevitable, and the question was one not so much of religion as it was Roman intolerance of a national disloyalty. “The question concerned was not one of faith but of power: the Jewish church-state, as head of the Diaspora, was not compatible with the absoluteness of the secular great state. From the general rule of tolera­tion the government did not even in this case depart; it waged war not against Judaism but against the high priest and the Sandhedrin.”(30) The Romans, in dealing with an emotional and temperamental people, blundered in the way they attempted to impose their sovereignty; in dealing so carelessly with the national and religious authority and security of the people, the Romans tempted insurrection despite their many concessions. Conflict was therefore unavoidable.

The historian Josephus defended the Jews against the Romans, although in a rather negative way. Although he was a traitor writing for the Romans, he absolved the Jews of the responsibility for precipi­tating the war on two accounts. He stated that Rome was destined by God to defeat the Jews and be the rulers of the world: “God is on the Roman side,”(31) he wrote. He also said that the revolt had no connection with earlier Jewish nationalism (as the rise of the Mac­cabees) but instead was the sole triumph of a new sect, the Zealots, who to him were not true Jews: “Seditiousness that invaded the Jews had nothing in common with past Jewish tradition and was not based on the Scriptures.” (32) This “revolutionary party, whose numbers and fortunes were at their zenith, seized the occasion … of these times for insurrection.” (33)

Neither party can be totally blamed for causing the war. The seeds of the struggle were long developing and ever present; the Roman carelessness, abuse, and intolerance and the likewise sensitive, fanatical, religious Zealots. The ultimate outbreak of war seems to have been the unavoidable result. But it also seems that it was the tremen­dous degree of abuse on the part of the Roman procurators that inflamed the situation, which might have otherwise remained tolerable even if not wholly cordial. In provincial administration, the Romans could have made a more positive attempt at understanding the Jews; their failure to do so cost them their own peace within the Empire.

Notes

1. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Wars, in The Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston (Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Company, 1880), p. 604.
2. Max Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the Jewish Peo­ple (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965), pp. 169-76.
3. , pp. 177-78.
4. Charles Alfred Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, S. H. Hooke (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), pp. 162-63.
5. Theodor Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, II (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 174.
6. Guignebert, pp. 37-39.
7. , p. 37.
8. Margolis, p. 179.
9. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, in Whiston, p. 531.
10. Max Cary, A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1939), pp. 542-43.
11. Margolis, p. 190.
12. Cary, p. 542.
13. Mommsen, pp. 224-25.
14. Cary, p. 543.
15.  
16. , p. 544.
17. Margolis, p. 197.
18. Guignebert, p. 17.
19. Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 755.
20. Margolis, p. 200.
21.  
22. Cary, p. 544.
23. Margolis, pp. 200-1.
24. Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 798.
25. , p. 822.
26. Margolis, p. 202.
27. Mommsen, p. 234.
28. , p. 237.
29. , p. 234.
30. , p. 220.
31. Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 794.
32. , p. 745.
33. , pp. 748-49.

Selected Bibliography

Cary, Max. A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine. London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1938.

Guignebert, Charles Alfred Honore. The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates & Company, 1880.

Margolis, Max, and Alexander Marx. A History of the Jewish People. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.

Mommsen, Theodor. Provinces of the Roman Empire, Vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906.