07-18-2008, 07:49 AM
Quote:Concerning the notion that the Jewish War was strictly an anti-Roman war I would recommend the book Apocalypse:The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73 by Neil Faulkner. He submits that this war was as much a revolt and repudiation of the Jewish upper class as it was a revolt against Rome.That's actually not a new thesis. It's a more or less common criticism of Josephus that he failed to understand the social-economic causes of the revolt, the fact that the war became one of poor against rich, and that Messianism was a way to express social discontent.
Once the poor had got the war they (or many of them) wanted, the Temple authorities tried to redirect the poor Jews' energies, and gave leaders to the armies (like Josephus). Popular, but moderate leaders like the Pharisee Simon ben Gamaliel, were accepted in some sort of provisional government. The idea behind this policy may have been that the Temple authorities remained in charge of the nation. Once the Romans appeared, they would surrender before the country had been destroyed completely; that would leave at least some kind of Temple government intact.
As it turned out, the Romans came, but at that moment, the power of the Temple government was already eroding: think of the struggle of Josephus, leader of the official army, against the peasant army of John of Gischala. The Zealots captured the Temple itself. What was left of traditional power, was destroyed in 68-69, when the war against Rome came to a standstill because Vespasian had other things to do.
Although Josephus mentions the bare facts, he does not give this overall analysis. In his view, the rebellious mob was just sinful, and violent resistance against foreign rulers "unJewish".
