Destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by Titus, Nicolas Poussin, 1635. Kunsthistorisches Museum
Judaea’s Leaderless Revolt Against Rome
The Second Temple was destroyed in the course of the Judaean Revolt (66–73 C.E.) against Rome, and looms large in Jewish history for the way in which it decisively shaped the future of Judaism. But how different was it from other revolts against Rome? Are there elements that mark the Judaean Revolt as unique and essentially different?
Published July 29, 2020
Some of the material for this essay was drawn from my article, “Revolts against Rome,” published in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed., edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler (Oxford, 2017).
The most comprehensive treatment of these revolts is Stephen L. Dyson, “Native Revolts in the Roman Empire,” Historia 20 (1971): 239–274. See more recently Gil Gambash, Rome and Provincial Resistance (Routledge, 2015).
In 68–69 C.E., known as the Year of the Four Emperors, three different generals, followed by Vespasian, rose to power in Rome. See David Gurevich, “Why Did Vespasian and Titus Destroy Jerusalem?” TheTorah (2015).
Editor’s note: For a discussion on the Roman conquest of Judaea, see Nadav Sharon, “An Ancient Precedent for the Yom Kippur War,” TheTorah (2017).
Editor’s note: For more on Herod and his connection to Rome, see Evie Gassner, “How Jewish Was Herod?” TheTorah (2019); Malka Z. Simkovich, “Mariamme, The Last Hasmonean Princess,” TheTorah (2019). For the Rabbinic critique of Herod’s connection to Rome, see Malka Z. Simkovich, “Esau, Ancestor of Rome,” TheTorah (2018).
While both Roman sources and the Jewish historian Josephus highlight the role of incompetent Roman procurators, this presentation is likely a product of the ancient historiographical tradition. Both had reasons to want to blame individual incompetent Romans rather than imperial policy (Roman sources) or disloyal subjects (Josephus).
On the Druids, see Jane Webster, “At the End of the World: Druidic and Other Revitalization Movements in Post-Conquest Gaul and Britain.” Britannia 30 (1999): 1-20.
The best recent discussions of the wide variety of issues surrounding the revolt of 66-73 are Andrea Berlin and J. Andrew Overman, The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (Routledge, 2002) and Mladen Popovic, The Jewish Revolt against Rome : Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Brill, 2011). Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea : The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome, A.D. 66-70 (Cambridge, 1987) also remains useful.
These individuals include Athronges, Simon of Peraea, Theudas, and an unnamed individual who disappeared into the desert.
According to the Talmud, it was R. Akiva who made this connection. See j. Taʿanit 4:5.
It’s worth noting that the Bar Kokhba revolt was unique in other ways: other regions in the Roman Empire did not see two revolts in a fifty-year period (with the exception of revolts by enslaved persons), and the social and economic conditions of the early second century do not match those of other revolts. Rather, the Bar Kokhba revolt seems to have been prompted by the decision of the emperor Hadrian to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman colony and so was more explicitly nationalist than other revolts.
Many other figures in the revolt could be listed here, including Ananus ben Ananus, a former High Priest who served as a leader of the provisional government, and Joseph Ben-Gurion, another leader of the provisional government, whose surname was adopted by Israel’s first prime minister.
Editor’s note: For a discussion of the role Agrippa’s sister, Berenice, played in this period (she ended up as Titus’s lover), see Malka Simkovich, “Queen Berenice: A Woman of Contrasts,” TheTorah (2016).
On these other nationalist monuments, see Hans A. Pohlsander, National Monuments and Nationalism in 19th Century Germany (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008); Kirsten Belgum, “Displaying the Nation: A View of Nineteenth-Century Monuments through a Popular Magazine,” Central European History 26, (1993), 457-474; Don D. Fowler, “Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State,” American Antiquity 52 (1987), 229-248.
In recent years, the ceremony at Masada has been phased out in favor of ceremonies conducted at a number of locations throughout the country. This decision suggests that the memory of the 66-73 revolt and avoiding a repeat of that fate no longer plays such a critical role in the identity of the Israeli state.
See most recently Jodi Magness, Masada: From Jewish Revolt to Modern Myth (Princeton, 2019).
