� 20. The Great War With Rome, A.D. 66-73

§ 20. THE GREAT WAR WITH ROME, A.D. 66-73
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14-vii.; Life, c. iv.-lxxiv. ZONARAS, Annales, vi. 18-29 (summary from Josephus).—On the so-called Hegesippus, see above, vol. i. pp. 100-102.
On the non-extant works of Vespasian, Antonius Julianus, and Justus of Tiberias, see above, vol. i. pp. 63-69.
Rabbinical traditions in DERENBOURG, pp. 255-295.
On the coins which possibly date from the period of this war, see Appendix IV.
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 486-616.
MILMAN, History of the Jews, books xiv., xv., xvi., xvii.
GRĀTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 448-557.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 594-629.
HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. iii. 421-477.
RENAN, Antichrist.
PRESSENSÉ, The Early Years of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 399-406. London 1879.
SCHILLER, Geschichte des römischen Kaiserreiches unter der Regierung des Nero (1872), pp. 205-261.—Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 1883, pp. 381-400.
MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, Bd. v. 1885, pp. 529-540.
LEWIN, The Siege of Jerusalem by Titus. With Journal of a recent Visit to the Holy City, and a general Sketch of the Topography of Jerusalem from the earliest Times down to the Siege. London 1863.—Compare Gött. gel. Anzeiger, 1864, p. 721 ff.—Also, Lewin, Fasti sacri, London 1865, pp. 338-362.
MORRISON, The Jews under the Romans. In “History of the Nations” series. London 1890.
CHAMPAGNT, Rome et la Judée au temps de la chute de Néron (ans 66-72 après Jésus-Christ), 2 éd. Paris 1865, t. i. pp. 195-254; t. ii. pp. 55-200.
DE SAULCY, Les derniers jours de Jérusalem. Paris 1886. Compare, Gött. gel. Anzeiger, 1868, p. 899 ff.
1. THE OUTBREAK AND TRIUMPH OF THE REVOLUTION, A.D. 66
THE ostensible occasion for the outbreak of the long threatened revolt was given by a deed of Floras which was not in itself any worse than many others committed by him, but to the people proved more intolerable because it was at the same time an outrage upon their religious sensibilities. Whereas before he had visited only the citizens with his plunderings, he now ventured to lay his hands upon the treasury of the temple, and to abstract from it seventeen talents. The people’s patience was thus tried beyond endurance. They now rose in a great tumult; a couple of sarcastic wits hit upon a plan for throwing contempt upon the greedy procurator by sending round baskets and collecting gifts for the poor and unfortunate Florus. When the governor heard of this he immediately resolved to take bloody vengeance upon those who had thus insulted him. With a detachment of soldiers he marched to Jerusalem, and in spite of the weeping entreaties of the high priests and the principal inhabitantants, he gave over a portion of the city to be plundered by his soldiers. A large number of citizens, including among them even Roman knights of Jewish descent, were seized at random, put in fetters, and then crucified. Even the humble pleadings of Queen Berenice, who happened to be present in Jerusalem at that time, had no effect in moderating the fury of the procurator and his soldiers.[1207]
[1207] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 6-9, 15. 1.
This outrage was committed on the 16th Artemisios (Ijjar, May) of the year 66.[1208]
[1208] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 2; comp. ii. 14. 4; Antiq. xx. 11. 1 (in the twelfth year of Nero). Though Josephus uses the Macedonian names of the months we are really to understand by them the Jewish months, which only approximately correspond to the months of the Julian calendar. See further details in Appendix III.
On the day following Florus expressed the wish that the citizens should go out to give a formal greeting to the two cohorts which were to enter the city from Caesarea, in order thereby to give a public proof of their submissiveness and of their penitent disposition. Although the people were not by any means inclined to do so, the high priests persuaded them to submit to this indignity lest something worse should befall them. In solemn procession the people went out to meet the two cohorts, and gave them a friendly greeting. But the soldiers, evidently guided by the instructions of Florus, refused to return their greeting. Then began the people to murmur, and to utter reproaches against Florus. The soldiers then seized their swords, and drove the people back amid incessant slaughter into the city. Then in the streets a violent conflict raged, in which the people succeeded in securing possession of the temple mount, and in cutting off the connection between it and the castle of Antonia. Florus could easily see that he was not strong enough to subdue the multitude by violence. He therefore withdrew to Caesarea, leaving behind only one cohort in Jerusalem, and announcing that he would hold the chief men of the city responsible for the quiet and order of the people.[1209]
[1209] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 3-6.
King Agrippa was at this time in Alexandria. When he heard of the disturbances he hastened to Jerusalem, summoned the people to an assembly on the Xystus, an open space in front of the palace of the Asmoneans, in which Agrippa resided, and from his palace addressed the people in a long and impressive speech, in order to urge them to abandon the utterly hopeless, and therefore unreasonable and disastrous struggle on which they were entering.[1210] The people declared themselves ready to return to their allegiance to the emperor They began again to build up the galleries between the temple mount and the Antonia, which they had torn down, and they collected the outstanding taxes. But when Agrippa insisted that they should again yield obedience to Florus, this was more than the people could endure. His proposals were rejected with contempt and scorn, and he was obliged to withdraw without accomplishing his purpose in his kingdom.[1211]
[1210] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 1-5; comp. 15. 1.—The statistical details about the Roman empire which Josephus has woven into this speech of Agrippa, were probably borrowed from an official publication. Compare Friedländer, De fonte quo Jonephus B. J. ii. 16. 4 usus sit. Regimonti (Index lectionum), 1873.
[1211] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 1.
Meanwhile the rebels had succeeded in gaining possession of the fortress of Masada. At the instigation of Eleasar, son of the high priest Ananias, it was now also resolved to discontinue the daily offering for the emperor, and no longer to admit of any offering by those who were not Jews. The refusal to offer a sacrifice for the emperor was equivalent to an open declaration of revolt against the Romans. All attempts of the principal men, among the chief priests as well as among the Pharisees, to induce the people to recall this foolhardy resolution were in vain. They firmly adhered to the decision to which they had come.[1212]
[1212] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 2-4.—On the fortress of Masada, see below at the end of this section.—On the daily sacrifice offered for the emperor, see the Second Division of the present work, vol. i. pp 302-304.
When the members of the peace party, to which, as might be expected, all discerning and judicious men belonged,—the high priests, the most distinguished of the Pharisees, those related to the house of Herod,—perceived that they were incapable of accomplishing any good, they resolved to have recourse to violent measures. They accordingly made application for assistance to King Agrippa. He sent a detachment of 3000 cavalry under the command of Darius and Philip, by whose help the peace party gained possession of the upper city, while the rebels continued to hold the temple mount and the lower city. A bitter strife now arose between the two parties; but the royal troops were not strong enough to withstand the violent rage of the multitude, and were obliged to evacuate the upper city. In order to take vengeance upon their opponents, the rebels set fire to the palaces of the high priest Ananias, of King Agrippa, and Berenice.[1213]
[1213] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 4-6.—The troops sent by Agrippa were ὑπὀ Δαρείῳ μὲν ἱππάρχῳ, στρατηγῷ δὲ τῷ Ἰακίμου Φιλίππῳ (Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 4 fin.) Philip was therefore the commander-in-chief. He was grandson of the Babylonian Zamaris, who in the time of Herod the Great had founded a Jewish colony in Batanea (Antiq. xvii. 2. 3). Compere on him also, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 1, iv. 1. 10; Life, xi., xxxv., xxxvi., lxxiv.—On an inscription communicated by Waddington mention is made of a Δομήδης [Δ]αρήιος ἔπαρχος βασιλέως μεγάλου Ἀγρίππα (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, iii. n. 2135), who is probably identical with our Derius.
A few days after this, in the month Loos, that is, Ab or August, they also succeeded in storming the citadel of Antonia, and then they began to lay siege to the upper palace, that of Herod, in which the troops of the peace party had taken refuge. Here, too, it was impossible for the besieged to offer any effectual resistance. Consequently the troops of Agrippa were only too glad to submit on the condition of being allowed to pass out unhurt. The Roman cohorts had betaken themselves to the three strong towers of the palace, known respectively by the names Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme, while all the rest of the palace was, on 6th Gorpiaios, that is, Elul or September, set on fire by the rebels.[1214] On the following day the high priest Ananias, who had hitherto kept himself concealed, was apprehended in his hiding-place and put to death.[1215] The solitary feeble support which still remained to the peace party, was that of the Roman cohorts besieged in the three towers of the palace of Herod. These, too, were obliged at last to yield to the superior power of the people. Upon laying down their arms they were allowed to walk out uninjured. But the rebels, who were now masters of the whole city, celebrated their victory by general slaughter. The Roman soldiers were scarcely gone, leaving their weapons behind them, when they were treacherously fallen upon by the Jews, and were cut down to the last man.[1216]
[1214] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 7-8; comp. v. 4. 4.—The leader of Agrippa’s troops, Philip, was subsequently called to account for his conduct (Josephus, Life, lxxiv.).
[1215] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 9.
[1216] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 10. Compare Megillath Taanith, § 14: “On the 17th Elul the Romans withdrew from Judea and Jerusalem” (Derenbourg, pp. 443, 445; Hitzig, ii. p. 600).
While thus the triumph of the revolution in Jerusalem was decided, bloody conflicts took place also in many other cities, where Jews and Gentiles dwelt together, especially within the borders of Palestine. Wherever the Jews were in the majority, they cut down their Gentile fellow-townsmen; and where the Gentiles predominated, they fell upon the Jews. The influence of the revolt in the mother country spread even as far as Alexandria.[1217]
[1217] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 1-8; Life, vi.
At last, after long delay and preparation, Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria, entered upon negotiations for the quieting of the disturbances in Judea. With the twelfth legion, 2000 chosen men from other legions, six cohorts, and four alae of cavalry, besides numerous auxiliary troops which the friendly kings, including Agrippa, had been obliged to place at his disposal, he started from Antioch, marched through Ptolemais, Caesarea, Antipatris, Lydda, where he arrived at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles in the month Tizri or October, and finally through Beth-horon to Gabao or Gibeon, 50 stadia from Jerusalem, and there pitched his camp.[1218] A sally made by the Jews from Jerusalem put the Roman army into a position of great danger, but was at last driven back.[1219] Cestius then advanced nearer to the city, and laid siege to the so-called Scopus, 7 stadia from Jerusalem. Four days later, on the 30th Hyperberetaios, that is, Tizri or October, he took possession unopposed of the northern suburb Bezetha, and set it on fire.[1220] But when he ventured upon the bolder task of storming the temple mount his enterprise failed. He thereupon desisted from all further attempts, and began to withdraw without accomplishing his object.[1221] Josephus is unable to explain the causes of this procedure. Probably Cestius perceived that his forces were insufficient for making an attack with any hope of success upon the well fortified and courageously defended city. With what determination and with what dauntless resolution the struggle was carried forward on the part of the Jews, was now to be proved to the Roman governor on his retreat In a ravine near Beth-horon, through which he was pursuing his journey, he found himself surrounded on every side by the Jews, and attacked with such force, that his homeward march was turned into a flight. Only by leaving behind him a great part of his baggage, including much valuable war material, which subsequently proved of great service to the Jews, did he succeed in reaching Antioch with a fragment of his army. Amid great rejoicings the returning conquerors entered Jerusalem on the 8th Dios, that is, Marchesvan or November.[1222]
[1218] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 9-10, 19. 1.—Γαβαώ is the Gibeon often referred to in the Old Testament, identified with El-Jeb north-west of Jerusalem. See Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Gibeon;” Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. pp. 136-138; Guérin, Judee, i. 385-391.
[1219] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 2.
[1220] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 4.—Scopus is also referred to in Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 7, v. 2. 3, 3. 2; Antiq. xi. 8. 5: εἰς τόπον τινὰ Σαφὶν [so the best manuscripts read] λεγόμενον· τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τοῦτο μεταφερόμενον εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν γλῶτταν Σκοπὸν [so the best manuscripts] σημαίνει. צָפִין is the Aramaic form for צוֹפִים, as the place is called in Mishna, Pesachim iii, 8. Compare also Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 42 (Opera, ii. 202). From this point a beautiful view of the city was obtained (Antiq. xi. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, v. 2. 3).—The suburb Bezetha is also referred to in Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 5, v. 4. 2, 5. 8. It is the most northerly suburb included by the so-called wall of Agrippa (Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 2).
[1221] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 5-7.
[1222] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 7-9.
In presence of the excitement caused by victory which now prevailed in Jerusalem all peace counsels were forcibly silenced. After such decisive successes no proposals of compromise would be listened to. Even those inclined to oppose were driven along by the course of events. Those who were inalienably attached to the Romans left the city. All the rest were drawn into their own ranks by the rebels, partly by force, partly by persuasion (τοὺς μὲν βίᾳ τοὺς δὲ πειθοῖ).[1223] They now set about organizing the rebellion in a regular methodical fashion, and made preparations for the expected onslaught of the Romans. It is distinctively characteristic of the later period of the war that the men who now had the power in their hands belonged exclusively to the higher ranks. The chief priests, the most distinguished of the Pharisees, were those who directed the organization of the land defences. An assembly of the people, which was held in the temple, made choice of commanders for the provinces. Two men, Joseph, son of Gorion, and the high priest Ananus, were entrusted with the defence of the capital. To Idumea they sent Jesus, son of Sapphias, and Eleasar, son of Ananias, both belonging to the high priestly family. Nearly all the eleven toparchies into which Judea was divided had their own commanders. Finally, to Galilee was sent Josephus, son of Matthias, the future historian.[1224]
[1223] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20.1-3.
[1224] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 3-4; Life, vii. In the latter passage Josephus is impudent enough to declare that the purpose for which he was sent was to pacify Galilee (compare also, Life, xiv.).—As had been already shown, the conduct of the revolt was in the hands of the people of Jerusalem (τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, Life, xii., xiii., xxxviii., xlix., lii., lx., lxv., lxx.), and as their representative the Sanhedrim (τὸ συνέὸριον τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, Life, xii.).
There is no doubt but that the youthful Josephus had thus one of the most difficult and most responsible positions assigned to him, for it was just in Galilee that the first attack of the Romans might be expected. Great results could scarcely be looked for in the conducting of warlike operations from a young man only thirty years of age; and he owed his appointment certainly less to his military capacities than to his friendship with the most distinguished personages. It was indeed a strange proceeding to send a young man, who in addition to his natural ability could at most only point to his rabbinical learning, to enlist an army with all haste from among the peaceful inhabitants of Galilee, and with it to hold his ground against the attack of veteran legions and circumvent the tactics of experienced generals! If we are to believe his own account, he set himself at least with zeal to the solving of the insoluble problem. For the governing of Galilee he appointed, in imitation of the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, a council of seventy men, which had to decide on difficult points of law; while for less important disputes he established in every city a council of seven men.[1225] He intended to prove his zeal for the law by destroying the palace of Tiberias, which, contrary to the law, was adorned with animal images; but in this he was anticipated by the revolutionary party.[1226] The military part of his task he endeavoured to carry out specially by strengthening the fortifications of the cities. All the more important cities of Galilee, Jotapata, Tarichea, Tiberias, Sepphoris, Gischala, Mount Tabor, also Gamala in Gaulanitis, and many smaller towns were put more or less in a condition of defence.[1227] But with special pride he boasts of his labours in organizing the army, He sought to bring together no less than 100,000 men, and to have them drilled after the Roman style.[1228]
[1225] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 5; Life, xiv.
[1226] Josephus, Life, xii.
[1227] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6; Life, xxxvii. Compare in addition: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 757-771; Robinson, Biblical Researches, vol.ii. p. 387.—Among the above-named seven important places Sepphoris never took the side of the revolution, but, so long as it was without Roman protection, assumed a vacillating position, hence even expending care on its fortifications; and then, so soon as Roman troops were available, taking sides with them. For further details, see Div. II., vol. i. p. 136.—Of the other six cities or fortresses, three, Tarichea, Tiberias, and Gamala, belonged to the territory of King Agrippa, and in part also joined the side of the revolution only after internal conflicts. See particularly on Tiberias, Div. II. vol. i. p. 143 f.; on Gamala, the present vol. p. 200.—Gischala took up a distinct position of its own, for there, John, son of Levi, the celebrated revolutionary hero of a later period, assumed to himself the government. He was dissatisfied with the lukewarm attitude of Josephus, and so refused to make over to him the fortress of the city, but took the command of it himself (Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6; Life, x., xxxviii.). See especially on the attitude of Gischala, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 7. 10; Life, x., xiii., xvi.-xviii., xx., xxv., xxxviii.—All the seven places here mentioned will be again referred to in the history of the rearrangement of Galilee by the Romans. See references to them also in geographical works.
[1228] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6-8.
While Josephus thus prepared for war with the Romans, a violent opposition arose against him in his own province, which even went the length of openly drawing the sword upon him. The soul of this hostile movement was John of Gischala, a bold, reckless party leader, who was filled with glowing hatred toward the Romans, and had resolved to carry on the struggle against them to the uttermost. But while he had sworn death and destruction to the tyrants, he was himself no less of a tyrant within his own circle. It was intolerable to him to brook the idea of having others over him. Least of all could he yield obedience to Josephus, whose tame method of conducting the war seemed to him no better than friendship for the Romans. Hence he used every endeavour to get the man so hateful to him set aside, and to withdraw the allegiance of the people of Galilee from him.[1229] His suspicion of Josephus was indeed not altogether without foundation. Josephus knew the Romans too well to entertain the notion that the rebellion could be really and finally successful. He was therefore necessarily only half-hearted in the business which he had undertaken, and sometimes unwittingly allowed this to appear. On one occasion certain youths from the village of Dabaritta had robbed an official of King Agrippa, and taken rich spoil. Josephus caused them to hand back what they had taken, and intended, if we may believe his own account of the affair, to restore them to the king on the first favourable opportunity. When the people perceived that this was his intention, the suspicion which John of Gischala had insinuated against him was increased, and now broke out into open rebellion. In Tarichea, where Josephus had his residence, a great tumult was made. They threatened the life of the traitor. Only by the most miserable and degrading self-humiliation and the exercise of low cunning could Josephus ward off the threatened danger.[1230] Some time later at Tiberias, he escaped the assassins sent against him by John of Gischala only by precipitate flight.[1231] At last John carried matters so far that he was able to obtain in Jerusalem a resolution to recall Josephus. Four of the most distinguished men were sent for this purpose to Galilee, accompanied by a detachment of soldiers numbering 2500 men, in order to carry out this decision by force if necessary. But Josephus knew how to frustrate the execution of this decree, and the four ambassadors were again recalled. When they refused compliance with that summons, he had them apprehended and sent them back to Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Tiberias who continued in revolt were subjugated by force, and thus for the time peace was restored.[1232] When, a few days later, the inhabitants of Tiberias again rose in revolt,—now, indeed, in favour of Agrippa and the Romans,—they were overcome once more by craft.[1233]
[1229] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21.1-2; Life, xiii.
[1230] Josephus, Wars of the Jews ii. 21. 3-5; Life, xxvi.-xxx.
[1231] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii, 21. 6; Life, xvi.-xviii.
[1232] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 7; Life, xxxviii.-lxiv., especially xxxviii.-xl., lx.-lxiv
[1233] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 8-10; Life, xxxii.-xxxiv.—In his autobiography (lxviii.-lxix.), Josephus relates that the πρῶτοι τῆς βουλῆς of Tiberias once at a later period sent entreating Agrippa for a garrison.—Tiberias, as might be expected from its mixed population, and as is expressly declared in the Life, ix., was in its sympathies partly Roman, partly anti-Roman, so that it is found sometimes in league with King Agrippa, sometimes in league with John of Gischala. On its precise position, however, it is difficult to say anything with confidence, since the statements in Josephus’ autobiography are all made with a purpose. On the general question, see Div. I. vol. i. 143; and on Justus of Tiberias, see present work, vol. i. pp. 65-69.
Meanwhile in Jerusalem they were by no means inactive. There, too, they were making preparations for meeting the Romans. The walls were strengthened, war material of all sorts was collected, the youth were exercised in the use of arms.[1234]
[1234] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 22. 1.
Amid such preparations the spring of A.D. 67 came round, and with it the time when the attack of the Romans was expected, and the young republic would have to pass through its fiery ordeal.
2. THE WAR IN GALILEE, A.D. 67
The Emperor Nero had received in Achaia the news of the defeat of Cestius.[1235] Since the continuance of the war could not have been committed to the defeated general,—he seems indeed soon afterwards to have died,[1236]—the difficult task of putting down the Jewish rebellion was made over to the well-proved hands of Vespasian. During winter Vespasian still pushed forward the preparations for the campaign. While he himself went to Antioch and there marshalled his army, he sent his son Titus to Alexandria, in order that he might bring to him from thence the fifteenth legion.[1237] So soon as the season of the year allowed, he marched from Antioch and advanced to Ptolemais, where he meant to await the arrival of Titus. But before Titus reached that place, ambassadors from the Galilean city of Sepphoris appeared before Vespasian and besought him to give them a Roman garrison.[1238] Vespasian hasted to comply with their request. A detachment of 6000 men under the leadership of Placidus was sent as a garrison to the city. Thus were the Romans, without drawing a sword, in possession of one of the most important and one of the strongest points in Galilee.[1239] Soon after this Titus arrived with his one legion. The army now at the disposal of Vespasian consisted of 3 distinct legions, the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth, 23 auxiliary cohorts, 6 alae of cavalry, besides the auxiliary troops of King Agrippa, of King Antiochus of Commagene, of Soemus of Emesa, and of Malchus of Arabia: in all comprising somewhere about 60,000 men.[1240]
[1235] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 1, iii. 1. 1.
[1236] “Fato aut taedio occidit,” says Tacitus, Hist. v. 10.—In the winter of A.D. 66-67, Cestius Gallus was still in the province. See Josephus, Life, viii., xliii., lxv., lxvii., lxxi.
[1237] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 2-3.—According to the common text of Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 3, Titus was to have brought two legions from Alexandria, τό τε πέμπτον καὶ τὸ δέκατον. But of the return of Titus to Vespasian it is said, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2: καὶ ἐκεῖ (supply “to Ptolemais”) καταλαβὼν τὸν πατέρα, δυσὶ τοῖς ἅμα αὐτῷ τάγμασιν, ἦν δὲ τὰ ἐπισημότατα τὸ πέμπτον καὶ τὸ δέκατον, ζεύγνυσι καὶ τὸ ἀχθὲν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ πεντεκαιδέκατον. This can only mean that to the two legions which he found with his father, the 5th and the 10th, he added the 15th, which was with him. With this also agrees the fact that Titus, according to Suetonius, Tit. iv., was during the war commander of one legion (legioni praepositus), that is, of the 15th. Accordingly the corrected reading in Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 3 will be: τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον. So Renier, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscript. et belles-lettres, t. xxvi. 1, p. 298, note 8.—Mommsen insists (Römische Geschichte, v. 533) that the Alexandria referred to here is not the celebrated Egyptian city, but the Alexandria situated on the Gulf of Isaus. So, too, Pick in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, xiii. 1885, p. 200. Mominsen’s chief argument is “because the land march from Alexandria on the Nile to Ptolemais through the revolted district in the beginning of the Jewish war could not he that intended by Josephus.” But of the coast cities only Joppa was among the insurgents, and even the case of Azotus and Jamnia is doubtful. See Div. II. vol. i. pp. 76-79. To march along by such a course was by no means so dangerous for a Roman army that Josephus would have been obliged to call attention to this. On the other hand, the “Alexandria” of the Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 3, 4. 2, is quite evidently the Egyptian. Any other Alexandria would have been more particularly distinguished by some epithet.
[1238] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 2. 4.—Sepphoris had even before the arrival of Vespasian possessed a Roman garrison (Life, lxxi.; Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 4). Whether this garrison had meanwhile been withdrawn, or was now only relieved or strengthened, is not quite clear. Compare Div. II. vol i. p. 136.
[1239] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 1; Life, lxxiv.—On Placidus, who had been in Galilee previous to the arrival of Veapasian, see also Life, xliii.
[1240] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2.
When all arrangements had been made, Vespasian advanced from Ptolemais and pitched his camp on the borders of Galilee. Josephus had before this set his camp at the village of Garis, twenty stadia from Sepphoris (Life, lxxi.), in order that he might there wait the attack of the Romans. The warlike qualities of his army were soon shown in a very doubtful light. When it became known that Vespasian was approaching, the majority of the Jewish troops became utterly dispirited, even before they had so much as come face to face with the Romans; they fled hither and thither; and Josephus found himself obliged to hasten with the remnant to Tiberias.[1241] Without drawing a sword, Vespasian had thus obtained possession of the lowlands of Galilee. Only the strongholds now remained for him to take.
[1241] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 6. 2-3.
Josephus soon held communication with Jerusalem, and insisted that if they wished the war to be carried on they should send an army able to cope with the Romans, a petition which now indeed came too late.[1242] The most of the army of Josephus had taken refuge in the strong fortress of Jotapata.[1243] Even he himself entered that stronghold on the 21st (?) Artemisios, that is, Ijjar or May, so as to conduct the defence in his own person.[1244] On the evening of the immediately following day, Vespasian with his army appeared before the city; and then began the celebrated siege of the certainly not unimportant stronghold, described with a self-glorifying amplitude of details by Josephus. The first attack led to no result. It was found necessary to have recourse to a regular siege. An obstinate struggle made the issue for some time doubtful. What on the one side was accomplished by art and the experience of war, was accomplished on the other by the courage of despair and the skill of the commander-in-chief. For although Josephus was indeed no general in the proper sense of the word, he was a past master in little tricks and stratagem. With profound satisfaction the vain man tells how he deceived the Roman generals as to the scarcity of water in the city by making his soldiers hang their clothes dripping with water over the battlements. He also tells how he managed to procure supplies of food by sending his men out by night clothed in the skins of beasts, so that they might pass by the Roman sentinels. He further relates how he broke the force of the battering-ram upon the wall by throwing out bags filled with chaff; how he had boiling oil thrown upon the soldiers, or boiling fenugreek poured on the boards of the scaling ladders, so that those advancing on them slipped and fell back. But neither by such arts nor by the boldness of the sallies, in one of which Vespasian himself was wounded, could the fate of the city be averted. After the besieged had endured the utmost extremity of suffering, a deserter betrayed the secret, that in consequence of fatigue the very sentinels could no longer keep themselves awake till the morning. The Romans made use of this information. With perfect stillness, Titus one morning with a small detachment scaled the wall, cut down the sleeping watch, and pressed into the city. The legions followed in his track, and the outwitted garrison were aware of the entrance of the Romans only when they no longer had power to drive them back. All without exception who fell into the hands of the Romans, armed and unarmed, men and women, were ruthlessly slain or carried off as slaves; the city and its fortifications were levelled with the dust. It was on the 1st of the month Panemos, that is, Thamuz or July, A.D. 67, when this most important fortress of Galilee fell into the hands of the Romans.[1245]
[1242] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 2.
[1243] Jotapata appears in the Mishna in the form יודפת (Arachin ix. 6; the Cambridge manuscript has ירפת with Resh, but the editio princeps and the cod. de Rossi, 138: יודפת, Jodaphath, also Aruch ירפת with Daleth). It is there spoken of as an ancient city, which had been, even in Joshua’s time, surrounded with walls. Compare also: Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 203 sq.—Its situation has been again discovered in 1847 by E. G. Schultz, in the modern Jefat, due north of Sepphoris. See E. G. Schultz, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellschaft, Bd. iii. 1849, pp. 49 ff., 59 ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 764-768; Robinson, Biblical Researches, iii. p. 105; Guérin, Galilée, i. 476-487; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 289, 311-313; and also Sheet V. of the Large English Map. On the siege, compare also: Parent, Siège de Jotapata, 1866 (quoted by Renan Der Antichrist, p. 220).
[1244] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 3.—Since, according to Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 33 and 8. 9, the siege lasted forty-seven days, and according to Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 36, it ended on the let of Panemos, the date 21st Artemisios cannot be correct.
[1245] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 4-36.
Josephus with forty companions had taken refuge in a well which discharged itself into a cave. When he was discovered there, he was willing to surrender to the Romans, but was prevented doing so by his companions. These only offered him the choice of dying along with them, either by their hand or by his own. By some sort of stratagem, having persuaded them that they should fall upon one another in the order determined by the lot, and having by the fortune of the lot been himself reserved to the last, Josephus managed to extricate himself from their hands, and having made his escape, surrendered himself to the Romans.[1246] When he was brought before Vespasian, he assumed the role of a prophet, and prophesied to the general his future elevation as emperor. This had for him at least this result, that although kept prisoner, he was dealt with in a generous manner.[1247]
[1246] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 1-8.
[1247] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 9; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 1; Suetonius, Vespasian, c. 5. According to Zonaras, Annales, xi. 16, Appian also in the twenty-second book of his Roman History tells of the saying of the Jewish oracle with reference to Vespasian.—Our older scholars have earnestly investigated the story of Josephus’ prophetic gift. Compare Olearius, Fl. Josephi de Vespasianis ad summum imperii fastigium advehendis vaticinium, 1699; Strohbach, de Josepho Vespasiano imperium praedicente, Lips. 1748. There may be some truth in the story. Probably Josephus has wittingly construed a couple of general phrases into a formal prophecy. It is noteworthy the rabbinical tradition ascribes this same prophecy to Rabbi Jochanan ben Saccai. See Derenbourg, p. 282.—Upon this Holwerda (Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Tweede Reeks deel, ii. 1872, p. 137 sq.) has made the remark that similar oracles were addressed to Titus and Vespasian by heathen priests. Thus Sostratus, the priest of Aphrodite at Paphos in Cyprus, revealed the future to Titus in secret conference when he inquired of the oracle there and sought for favourable omens (Tacitus, Hist. ii. 4: “petito secreto futura aperit.” Still more distinctly, Suetonius, Titus, c. 6: “aditoque Paphiae Veneris oraculo, dum de navigatione consulit, etiam de imperii spe confirmatus est”). The priest Basilides on Carmel declared to Vespasian on the ground of the sacrificial signs: “quidquid est, Vespasiane, quod paras, seu domum extruere seu prolatare agros sive ampliare servitia, datur tibi magna sedes, ingentes termini, multum hominum” (Tacitus, Hist. ii. 78. Compare Suetonius, Vespasian, c. 5: “Apud Judaeam Carmeli dei oraculum consulentem ita confirmavere sortes, ut quidquid cogitaret volveretque animo quamlibet magnum, id esse proventurum pollicerentur”). These heathen oracles, however, belong to a later period than the one referred to by Josephus.
On the fourth day of Panemos, Vespasian advanced from Jotapata and marched next past Ptolemais to Caesarea, where he allowed the troops some rest.[1248] While the soldiers were refreshing themselves after the exertions of the siege, the general paid a visit to the friendly King Agrippa at Caesarea Philippi, and took part there in extravagant festivities lasting for twenty days. He then sent the legions by Titus from Caesarea by the sea and marched against Tiberias, where, at the sight of the Roman army, the people of their own accord opened their gates, and for Agrippa’s sake received honourable treatment.[1249] From this point Vespasian pursued his way onward to Tarichea.[1250] By a bold stroke of Titus, this city also fell into the hands of the Romans in the beginning of the month Gorpiaios, that is, Elul or September.[1251]
[1248] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 1.
[1249] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7-8.
[1250] Ταριχέαι or Ταριχέα (both forms of spelling are met with) had its name from the curing of fish which was carried on there (Strabo, xvi. 2. 45, p. 764). It is first mentioned in the time of Cassius, who, during this first administration of Syria in B.C. 52-51, took the city by force of arms (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9), and, during his second administration, again visited it. He wrote to Cicero in B.C. 43, “ex castris Taricheis,” Cicero ad Familieres, xii. 11.—According to Josephus, Life, xxxii., it lay thirty stadia from Tiberias; according to Wars of the Jews, iii. 10. 1, it was situated upon the lake of Gennezaret at the foot of a hill (ὑπώρειος); according to Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 15. 11, it lay at the south end of the lake (a meridie Tarichea). It is therefore to be sought on the site or in the neighbourhood of the present Kerak where the Jordan emerges from the lake. Thus Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 387; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 344 ff.; Cless in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2, 1602 ff.; Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 78; Conder, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statements, 1878, pp. 190-192; Guérin, Galilée, i. 275-280; Kasteren, Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 1888, pp. 215 ff., 241 ff.—Many recent writers are of opinion that the statements of Josephus require us to seek Tarichea to the north of Tiberias, somewhere about the site of the present Mejdel. So Quandt, Judäa und die Nachbarschaft, 1873, p. 107 f.; Wilson, Quarterly Statements, 1877,10-13; Kitchener, Quarterly Statements, 1878, p. 79; Furrer, Zeitschrift des DPV. ii. 1879, pp. 55-57, xii. 1889, pp. 145-148; Grätz, Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1880, pp. 484-487; Spiess, Zeitschrift des DPV. viii. 1885, pp. 95-89; Frei, Zeitschrift des DPV. ix. 1886, pp. 103-108; Öhlmann, Die Fortschritte der Ortskunde von Palästina, 1 Thl. (Norden 1887, Progr.) pp. 12-14. But the course of Vespasian’s march described by Josephus by no means proves that Tarichea lay to the north of Tiberias. Vespasian, evidently went from Scythopolis, therefore from the south, to Tiberias (Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7). But there is no ground for supposing that he continued his march from thence still in a northerly direction. Rather after occupying Tiberias, he pitched his camp at Emmaus “between Tiberias and Tarichea,” as appears from a comparison of Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 3 with iii. 10. 1. But seeing that the warm springs of Emmaus to this day lie south of Tiberias, it is evident that Vespasian, after the occupation of Tiberias, again turned toward the south. It is thus really established by the statements of Josephus that Tarichea lay to the south of Tiberias. Those who place Tarichea to the north of Tiberias must also place Emmaus north of Tiberias, and then in consistency they must deny the identity of the Emmaus referred to by Josephus and the modern Hammam, which must nevertheless be regarded as a certain fact.
[1251] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 10. Suetonius, Titus, 4, ascribes to Titus the conquest of Tarichea and Gamala; the latter incorrectly.—After Tarichea had been taken by surprise, a portion of the inhabitants endeavoured to make their escape in a boat out upon the lake. Vespasian caused them to be pursued on rafts, and the fugitives all met their death, either by the sword or in the water. It has been conjectured that this is the “Victoria navalis,” which was celebrated by coins or medals, and in the triumphal procession was made noticeable by a ship (Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 5: πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ νῆες εἵποντο). Compare Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vi. 330; Stange, De Titi imperat. vita (1870), p. 22. On the medals, see Cohen, Médailles impérailes, ed. 2, t. i. 1880, p. 417 sq., n. 632-639 (Vespasianus), p. 460, n. 386-390 (Titus) p. 522 sq. n. 636-638 (Domitian); Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 223.
In Galilee there now remained in the hands of the rebels only Gischala and Mount Tabor (Itabyrion), and in Gaulanitis the important and strongly fortified Gamala.[1252] To the last-named place Vespasian next directed his attention. The siege appeared soon to be successful. The Romans succeeded in storming the walls and forcing an entrance into the city. But there they encountered such bitter resistance that they were forced to retire with very heavy loss. The repulse was so severe that it required all Vespasian’s influence and reputation to restore again the courage of the soldiers. At last, on the 23rd Hyperberetaios, that is, Tizri or October, the Romans again forced their way into the city, and were this time successful in making themselves complete masters of the situation.[1253] During the siege of Gamala the Mount Tabor (Itabyrion) was also taken by a detachment sent thither.[1254]
[1252] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1.—Gamala (גַמְלָא) is mentioned in the Mishna, Arachin ix. 6, among the cities which are said to have been surrounded with walls from the days of Joshua. Its existence is historically demonstrable from the time of Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 8). According to the Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1, it lay opposite Tarichea in Lower Gaulanitis, therefore east of the Lake of Gennezaret. But any more particular determination of its site cannot now be given. The conjecture that it is identical with el-Hösn is not quite certain, still less can the notion recently favoured by many be maintained, that it was situated farther to the north. Furrer’s conjecture is also improbable, that it is to be sought in the present Jamli on the eastern bank of the Nahr er-rukkad, a day’s journey east of the Lake of Gennezaret. Compare Schumacher’s map of Golan in the Zeitschrift des DPV. ix. 1886. If it lay at such a distance from the lake, Josephus would not have been able to describe it as a πόλις Ταριχεῶν ἄντικρυς ὑπὲρ τὴν λίμνην κειμένη (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1). Compare generally: Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina- Vereins, ii. 1879, pp. 70-72, xii. 1889, pp. 148-151; Guérin, Galilée, i. 317-321; Merrill, East of the Jordan, 1881, pp. 161, 164, 168; Gildemeister, Zeitschrift des DPV. viii. 242 f., and with it, ix. 358-360; Frei, Zeitschrift des DPV ix. 120 ff.; Kasteren, Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 220-225. The position of el-Hösn is minutely described; Schumacher, Zeitschrift da DPV. ix. 327 ff., with plan and map.
[1253] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 2-10.
[1254] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 8.—On the position of Tabor and its history, see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 223, 224; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 391-404; Winer, Realwörterbuch, art “Thabor;” Guérin, Galilée, i. 143-163; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 358 ff., 388 ff. (with plan, i. 388); together with Sheet VI. of the large English Map.
Vespasian gave over the reducing of Gischala to Titus with a detachment of 1000 cavalry. He himself led the 5th and 15th legions into winter quarters at Caesarea, while he placed the 10th at Scythopolis.[1255] Titus made light work of Gischala. On the second day after his appearing before the walls of the city, the citizens of their own accord opened the gates to him, John having secretly, during the previous night, with his Zealot comrades quitted the city and fled to Jerusalem.[1256]
[1255] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 2.1.
[1256] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 2. 2-5.—Gischala is in the Hebrew Gush-Chalab, נרש חלב, and is also mentioned in the Mishna among the cities which from the time of Joshua were surrounded with walls (Arachin ix. 6). Its name signifies “fat or rich clod.” In fact, it yielded abundance of oil (Josephus, Life, xiii.; Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 2; Tosefta Menachoth ix. 5; Bab. Menachoth 85b; Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 230 sq.). In the Jewish traditions of the Middle Ages it was famous for its graves of Rabbis and its ancient synagogue (Carmoly, Itinéraires de la Terre-Sainte, 1847, pp. 133 sq., 166, 184, 262, 380, 452 sq.).—It lay in the neigbourhood of the territory of Tyre (Wars of the Jews, iv. 2. 3 fin.), and is undoubtedly to be identified with the present Eljish in Northern Galilee, somewhere about the same geographical latitude with the southern end of the Merom lake. Of the ancient synagogue there are still ruins to be found there. See generally: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 770 f.; Renan, Mission de Phénicie, pp. 778-780; Guérin, Galilée, ii. 94-100; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 198, 224-226, and with it Sheet IV. of the large English Map.
Thus by the end of A.D. 67 was the whole of the north of Palestine brought again into subjection to the Romans.
3. FROM THE SUBJUGATION OF GALILEE TO THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM, A.D. 68-69
The unfortunate results of the first year of the war determined the fate of the leaders of the rebellion. On the part of the fanatical section of the people, and not without cause, the unfavourable turn that events had taken was attributed to the lack of energy in the mode of conducting the war hitherto. The men of the people therefore set themselves with all their might to get the reins into their own hands, and to set aside those who had been in command. And since these would not of their own accord withdraw, a fearfully bloody civil war, accompanied by acts of horrid cruelty, broke out during the winter of A.D. 67-68 in Jerusalem, which in its atrocities can only be compared to the first French revolution.
The head of the fanatical popular party, or, as they called themselves, the Zealots, was John of Gischala. After he had escaped the hands of Titus by flight, he went with his followers, in the beginning of November A.D. 67, to Jerusalem, and sought to win over the people to himself and to rekindle in their breasts a determination to continue the war in a bolder and more resolute spirit. He readily succeeded in gaining over the youth to his side. And since now on all hands the war-loving rabble from the country poured into the city, the party of the Zealots was soon in the ascendency.[1257] They next proceeded to set aside those who were suspected of friendship for the Romans. Several of the most distinguished men, among them Antipas, who belonged to the family of Herod, were put under arrest, and were murdered in prison.[1258] Their next proceeding was to choose a new high priest by lot, for those who had held the office up to this time all belonged to the aristocratic party. The newly-elected high priest, Phannias of Aphtha, was not indeed in the least degree acquainted with the duties of the high priest’s office. But he was a man of the people, and that was the main thing.[1259]
[1257] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 1-3.
[1258] Ibid. iv. 3. 4-5.
[1259] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 6-8. Compare Derenbourg, p. 269.
The men of order, Gorion, son of Joseph,[1260] the famous Pharisee Simon, son of Gamaliel,[1261] the two high priests, Ananus, son of Ananus, and Jesus, son of Gamaliel, sought on their part to resist the Zealots by force. They exhorted the people to put a stop to the wild schemes of that faction.[1262] A discourse which Ananus delivered with this end in view[1263] had indeed this result, that a section of the populace declared open hostilities against the Zealots. These enthusiasts were in the minority, and were obliged to retreat before the superior force of their opponents, and to take refuge in the inner court of the temple, where for a time they were carefully guarded, as the people would not violently attack the sacred gates.[1264]
[1260] So Josephus names him here. But he is probably identical with the Joseph, son of Gorion, mentioned above at p. 214. So also Derenbourg, p. 270.
[1261] Compare on him also: Josephus, Life, xxxviii., xxxix., xliv., lx.; Derenbourg, pp. 270-272, 474 sq.
[1262] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 9.
[1263] Ibid. iv. 3. 10.
[1264] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 12.
In order to obtain support the Zealots secretly sent messengers to the war-loving Idumeans, and besought of them that they would form a confederacy on the pretext that the dominant party in Jerusalem had fallen away to Romans. The Idumeans appeared before the walls of the city, but were not admitted, for no one knew of their alliance with the Zealots.[1265] On the night after their arrival a terrible hurricane burst forth. The storm raged, and the rain fell in torrents. Under shelter of this storm the Zealots succeeded in secretly opening the gates to their confederates and letting them in unobserved.[1266] Scarcely had the Idumeans obtained a firm footing in the city, when they began the work of murder and robbery, in which the Zealots afforded them ready aid. The party of order was too weak to withstand the attack. The victory of the reign of terror in Jerusalem was complete. The rage of the Zealots and of the Idumeans in league with them was directly mainly against the distinguished, respectable, and well-to-do. All those who had previously been leaders of the revolution were now made away with as suspected friends of the Romans. Conspicuous above all the other victims of their murderous zeal were the high priests Ananus and Jesus.[1267] In order to lend to their wild scheme the semblance of legal sanction, the comedy of a formal process at law was on one occasion enacted. But when the court of justice convened for that purpose pronounced the accused, Zacharias, son of Baruch, innocent, he was cut down by a couple of Zealots with the scornful declaration: “Here hast thou also our voices.”[1268]
[1265] Ibid. iv. 4. 1-4.
[1266] Ibid. iv. 4. 5-7.
[1267] Ibid. iv. 5. 1-3.
[1268] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 5. 4.—Some have sought wrongly to identify this Zacharias with the one mentioned in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51.
When the Idumeans had been satiated with murder, and had, besides, observed that what had been styled threatened treason was only a calumnious charge trumped up against order-loving citizens, they would have no more partnership with the Zealots, and so took their departure.[1269] All the more unrestrainedly did the Zealots now pursue their rule of terror. Gorion also now fell under their lash. The party of the well-doing and order-loving had been by this time so sadly thinned that there could no longer be any thought of resistance. John of Gischala was supreme potentate in the city.[1270]
[1269] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 5. 5, 6. 1.
[1270] Ibid. iv. 6. 1.
At this period, if not even earlier than this, occurred the flight of the Christian community from Jerusalem. The Christians left the city “in consequence of a divine admonition,” and migrated to the city of Pella in Perea, which is a heathen city was undisturbed by the war.[1271]
[1271] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii. 6. 2-3; Epiphanius, Haer. 29. 7; de mensuris et ponderibus, § 15. The migration took place κατά τινα χρητμὸν τοῖς αὐτόθι δοκίμοις διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐκδοθέντα κ.τ.λ. (Euseb. Hist. eccl. iii. 5. 3).—On Pella, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 113-115.
Vespasian’s generals were of the opinion that they should take advantage of these circumstances, and that now was the time to begin the attack upon the capital. They thought that in consequence of the internal conflicts within the city the task before them would be easily accomplished. Not so Vespasian. He regarded it as more prudent to allow his enemies to waste their strength in the civil strife, and to consume one another.[1272] In order that the inhabitants of the capital might have time to carry out their work of self-destruction, he directed his attention meanwhile to Perea. Even before the favourable season had arrived, he marched from Caesarea on the 4th Dystros, that is, Adar or March, of A.D. 68, invested Gadara, in order to guard against the elements in the city hostile to the Romans, left there a garrison, and then turned back again to Caesarea.[1273] A detachment of 3000 infantry and 500 cavalry, which he left behind him under the command of Placidus, completed the subjugation of all Perea as far as Machärus.[1274] When the more suitable season came round,[1275] Vespasian advanced with the greater part of his army from Caesarea and invested Antipatris, took Lydda and Jamnia, drew up the 5th legion before Emmaus, made a successful raid through Idumea, then turned again northward upon Emmaus, pressed through Samaria to Neapolis (Shechem), and thence past Corea, where he arrived on 2 Daisios, that is Sivan or June, to Jericho.[1276] At Jericho and Adida he left Roman garrisons, while Gerasa(?) was taken and then destroyed by a detachment sent against it under Lucius Annius.[1277]
[1272] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 6. 2-3.
[1273] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 7. 3. 4.—On Gadara, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 100-104.
[1274] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 7. 4-6.
[1275] ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἔαρος, Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1.
[1276] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1.—On Corea, see present work, vol. i. p. 320. The other cities are well known.
[1277] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 1.—On Adida, see present work, vol. i. p. 252.—Gerasa cannot be the celebrated Hellenistic city of Decapolis, for it certainly continued faithful on the side of the Romans.
The country was now so far subdued that it only remained to begin the siege of the capital. Vespasian therefore turned back to Caesarea, and was actually busying himself with preparations for the siege of Jerusalem when the news reached him of the death of Nero, which had taken place on 9th June A.D. 68. By this event the whole situation was suddenly changed. The future of the empire as a whole was uncertain. Vespasian therefore suspended all warlike undertakings, and concluded to wait for the further development of affairs. When the news of Galba’s elevation to the throne arrived, which was not till the middle of the winter of A.D, 68-69, he sent his son Titus to Rome in order to convey his greetings to the new emperor, and to receive from him his commands. But Titus had proceeded no farther than Corinth when he received tidings of the murder of Galba, which occurred on 15th January A.D. 69, whereupon he returned to Caesarea to his father. Vespasian was now inclined to wait without committing himself to see how things would go.[1278]
[1278] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 2.—See further details regarding the journey of Titus in Tacitus, Hist. ii. 1-4.
Circumstances, however, soon obliged him again to take decisive action. A certain Simon Bar-Giora, that is, son of the proselyte,[1279] a man of like spirit to John of Gischala, inspired by an equally wild enthusiasm for freedom, and just as little able to brook the presence of any one over himself, had taken advantage of the cessation of hostilities to gather around himself a crowd of supporters, with which he overran the southern parts of Palestine, robbing and plundering wherever he went. Everywhere the course which he and his horde had taken was marked by devastation. Among other successes he managed to surprise Hebron, and to carry off from it abundant spoil.[1280]
[1279] Josephus always designates him υἱὸς Γιώρα. The form Βαργιορᾶς, Bargiora, occurs in Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7, and Tacitus, Hist. v. 12. Tacitus erroneously ascribes this cognomen to John. גִיוֹרָא is the Aramaic form for גֵר, the proselyte. See Div. II. vol. ii. p. 316 f.
[1280] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 3-8.
Vespasian therefore found it necessary to secure possession of Judea in a more thorough manner than had hitherto been accomplished. On the 5th Daisios, that is, Sivan or June, of the year 69, after a whole year had passed without armed interference, he again advanced from Caesarea, subdued the districts of Gophna and Acrabata, the cities of Bethel and Ephraim, and arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, while his tribune Cerealis conquered and destroyed the city of Hebron, which had offered opposition. With the exception of Jerusalem and the fortresses of Herodium, Masada, and Machärus, all Palestine was now subject to the Romans.[1281]
[1281] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 9.—On Gophna and Acrabata, see Div. II. vol. i. p. 158. On Bethel and Ephraim, see present work, vol. i. p. 236 and p. 246.
Even before Simon found himself prevented by this expedition of Vespasian from continuing his robber raids through Idumea, the gate of the capital had been flung open to receive him. Up to the spring of A.D. 69, John of Gischala had there played the part of the omnipotent tyrant. Of the ruinous confusion and lawlessness that prevailed in Jerusalem under his rule Josephus has given a thrilling and horrible description.[1282] The inhabitants, who had long desired to be rid of his supremacy, looked with favour upon the arrival of Simon Bar-Giora as a means of freeing them from him who now acted the tyrant over them. On the suggestion of the high priest Matthias, Simon was invited to come into the city. He most readily accepted the invitation, and made his public entrance into Jerusalem in the month Xanthicus, that is, Nisan or April, of the year 69. But, although the hope had been entertained that he would free them from the tyranny of John, it was now found that they rather had two tyrants in the city who fought against one another, both regarding the resident citizens as their common enemies.[1283]
[1282] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 10.
[1283] Ibid. iv. 9. 11-12. Compare v. 13. 1.
Vespasian had scarcely returned back to Caesarea when the news came that Vitellius had been raised to the throne as emperor. The idea then took possession of the legions in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria that they had as much right to nominate the emperor as had their comrades in the West, and that Vespasian was more worthy of the throne than the glutton Vitellius. On 1st July A.D. 69, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor in Egypt. A few days afterwards the Palestinian and Syrian legions made the same proclamation. Before the middle of July, Vespasian was acknowledged as emperor throughout the whole East.[1284]
[1284] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 2-6; Tacitus, Hist. ii. 79-81; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6. That the Egyptian legions were the first to proclaim Vespasian emperor is stated by Tacitus and Suetonius; according to Josephus, the Palestinian legions had the precedence. The proclamation, in any case, was made in Palestine, according to Tacitus, “quintum Nonas Julias;” according to Suetonius, “V. Idus Jul.”—After his appointment as emperor he gave to Josephus a free pardon in thankful remembrance of his prophecy (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 7).
He had now something else to engage his attention than the prosecution of the war against the rebellious Jews. After he had received at Berytus the embassies from various Syrian and other cities, he marched on to Antioch, and from thence sent to Rome by road Mucianus with an army.[1285] He then went himself to Alexandria. During his residence there he obtained the intelligence that his interests had prevailed in Rome, and that Vitellius had been murdered on 20th December A.D. 69. He himself still remained in Alexandria till the beginning of the summer of A.D. 70;[1286] while his son Titus, to whom he had committed the continuing of the Jewish war, marched at the head of the army to Palestine.[1287]
[1285] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 6, 11. 1; Tacitue, Hist. ii. 81-83.
[1286] According to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 5, Vespasian wished to march to Rome λήξαντος τοῦ χειμῶνος. According to Tacitus, he waited in Alexandria till the time of the summer winds, and till he had assurance of being able to make the voyage by sea (Hist. iv. 81: “statos aestivis flatibus dies et certa maris opperiebatur”). On the route of his journey, see especially Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 2. 1. He did not, however, reach Rome until after the middle of the year 70. See Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 500; Chambalu, “Wann ist Vespasian im J. 70, Titus im J. 71 aus dem Orient nach Rom zurückgekehrt?” (Philologus, Bd. xliv. 1885, pp. 502-517). Chambalu holds that Vespasian did not leave Alexandria before August, and that he arrived in Rome in October A.D. 70. This latter statement must certainly be adopted, since Titus did not obtain word of Vespasian’s happy arrival in Italy until November, when he was celebrating his father’s birthday (17th November) in Berytus (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1; compare 4. 1).
[1287] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 5.—On the legal position of Titus daring the war, see Pick, “Der Imperatortitel des Titus,” in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, pp. 190-238. Pick deals with the time preceding Titus’ appointment as emperor.
In Jerusalem, by this time, the internal feuds had advanced one step further. Instead of the two parties of John and Simon there were now three, for from the party of John a new section had broken off under Eleasar, son of Simon. Simon had in his power the upper city and a great part of the lower city, John held the Temple Mount, and Eleasar the inner Court of the Temple. All three continued incessantly at war with one another, so that the city from day to day presented the aspect of a battlefield. In their mutual hatred of one another they became so foolish that they destroyed by fire the immense store of grain which had been gathered up in the city, lest their rivals should profit by it, without considering that thereby they robbed themselves of the means of sustaining a siege.[1288] While thus Jerusalem was tearing its own flesh, Titus was carrying on the preparations for his attack.
[1288] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 1-5; Tacitus, Hist. v. 12. See also Rabbinical traditions about the destruction of the collection of grain in Derenbourg, p. 281.
4. THE SIEGE AND CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, A.D. [1289]
[1289] Compare, in regard to what follows, the monographs on Titus: Stange, De Titi imperatoris vita, part i. Breslau 1870; Double, Vie de l’empereur Titus, Paris 1876 (reviewed in the Revue archéol. n. s. xxxiii. 1677, pp. 279-282; Steinwenter, Titus Flavius Vespasianus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zerstörung Jerusalems, Graz 1876 (reviewed in the Zeitschrift für die oesterreich. Gymn. xxviii. 1877, p. 70); Otto Adalb. Hoffmann, De imperatoris Titi temporibus recte definiendis, Marburg 1883. Against Hoffmann’s view, that the months used as dates in Josephus are to be taken from the Julian calendar, see Appendix III.
The army which Titus had at his disposal consisted of four legions. Besides the three legions of his father, the 5th, 10th, and 15th, he had also the 12th, which had already been in Syria under Cestius, and had so unfortunately begun the war. In addition to these, he had also the numerous auxiliary troops of the confederate kings.[1290] The commanders of the legions were—Sextus Cerealis over the 5th legion, Larcius Lepidus over the 10th, Tittius Frugi over the 15th. The commander of the 12th legion is not named. As principal adviser, we would call him Chief of the Staff, Tiberius Alexander, afterwards procurator of Judea, accompanied Titus.[1291] While a part of the army received orders to push on to meet him before Jerusalem, Titus himself advanced with the main body of his forces from Caesarea,[1292] and a few days before the Passover, 14th Nisan or April, of A.D. 70, arrived before the walls of the Holy City.[1293]
[1290] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6; Tacitus, Hist. v. 1.
[1291] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3. On the generals here named, see Léon Renier, “Mémoire sur les officiers qui assistèrent au conseil de guerre tenu par Titus, avant de livrer l’assaut du temple de Jérusalem” (in the Mémoires de l’Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. pt. i. 1867, pp. 269-321).—The commander of the 15th legion is called, not Titus Frugi, as our editions of the text of Josephus give it, but M. Tittius Frugi. See Léon Renier, p. 314.—Renier’s remarks on Cerealis are to be corrected by reference to Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraph. iv. 499, and Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia provinces Romanis, 1885, p. 37. Renier confounds two of the name of Cerealis with one another. Our Cerealis is mentioned also in Inscript. Regni Neap. n. 4636=Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. x. n. 4862.—Tiberius Julius Alexander is described by Josephus as τῶν στρατευμάτων ἄρχων (Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6), πάντων τῶν στρατευμάτων ἐπάρχων (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3). In accordance with this, Mommsen fills up the gaps in the inscription of Aradus, Corpus Inscript. Graec. t. iii. p. 1178, n. 4536f.=Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, p. 644: Τιβερίο]υ Ἰουλίου Ἀλ[εξάνδρου ἐπ]άρχου τοῦ Ἰουδαι[κοῦ στρατοῦ]. Tiberius Julius Alexander was therefore “chief of the staff of the general.” The position of this officer of equestrian rank, in an army commanded by a senatorian general, was similar to that of the praefectus prastorio in the army commanded by the emperor himself. See Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, t. v. p. 578, at n. 1344; Mommsen, Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, p. 644 ff.; Pick in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, p. 207 f.
[1292] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6.
[1293] As appears from v. 3. 1 compared with v. 13. 7.—The elder Pliny held a position in the army of Titus, and was indeed ἀντεπίτροπος of Tiberius Julius Alexander, according to Mommsen’s skilful rendering of the inscription of Aradus, Corpus Inscript. Graec. t. iii. p. 1178, n. 4536f. With reference to this, Pliny, in the dedication of his Natural History to Titus, says: “nobis quidem qualis in castrensi contubernio.” See for further particulars, Mommsen, Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp. 644-648.
Titus had hurried on in advance of the legions with 600 cavalry in order to obtain information about the country by spies, and had in this got so far ahead of the main body, that he exposed himself most seriously to the danger of being fallen upon by the Jews, and, indeed, owed his safety wholly to his own personal bravery.[1294] The Romans, from the moment of their arrival, had painful experience of the daring spirit of their opponents. While the 10th legion, which had advanced from Jericho to Jerusalem, was still occupied with the strengthening of its camp on the Mount of Olives, it was attacked with such violence that it had well-nigh suffered an utter defeat. Only by the personal interference of Titus was the yielding legion brought again to a stand, and enabled to ward off the attack.[1295]
[1294] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 2. 1-2.
[1295] Ibid. v. 2. 4-5.
The conflict of parties within the city, however, was not even yet by any means abated. Even when the Romans were lying before the gates, during the Passover festival, a carnage of one party by the other was going on within the city. The faction of Eleasar had opened the gate of the temple court for those who had gone up to attend the feast. John of Gischala took advantage of this in order to smuggle in his people with concealed weapons, and to fall on Eleasar and his followers when least expected. Those who were thus taken by surprise were not strong enough to sustain the conflict, and were obliged to admit John’s adherents into the court. From this time forward there were again two parties in Jerusalem, that of John and that of Simon.[1296]
[1296] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 1; Tacitus, Hist. v. 12 fin.
In order to understand the siege operations that followed, it is necessary to form for oneself at least a general idea of the situation of the city,[1297] Jerusalem lay upon two hills, a higher one to the west and a smaller one to the east, which were separated by a deep ravine running from north to south, the so-called Tyropoeon. On the larger western hill lay the upper city, on the smaller eastern hill the lower city. The latter was also called Acra, because there in former days down to the times of the Maccabees the citadel or castle of Jerusalem had been placed.[1298] North of the Acra lay the site of the temple, the area of which had been considerably enlarged by Herod. Attached to the temple site on its northern side was the castle of Antonia. The temple site was surrounded on all its four sides by a strong wall, and thus even by itself n lone formed a little fortress. The upper and the lower cities were surrounded by a common wall which was attached to the western wall of the temple site ; it then ran on to the west, stretched in a great curve southward over the upper and lower cities, and finally ended at the south-eastmost corner of the temple site. But, further, the upper city must have been separated from the lower city by a wall running from north to south reaching to the Tyropoeon. For Titus was obliged, after he had gained possession of the lower city, to direct an attack against the wall of the upper city.—On the west, south, and east, the walls stood upon the edge of lofty precipices; only on the north did the ground run down tolerably low. Thus was there with a northern curve a second wall which enclosed the older suburb; and then in a still wider curve to the north, a third wall, which had been begun by Agrippa I., but was completed only when found urgently needed during the rebellion. This third wall enclosed the so-called new city or suburb of Bezetha.[1299]
[1297] Compare the designation in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 4.—Of the almost incalculable literature on the topography of Jerusalem the more important works are referred to in vol. i. p. 19. The hypotheses of recent investigators about the old topography are shown in a special map in Menke’s Bibelatlas, Sheet V., and still more completely by Zimmermann, Karten und Pläne zur Topographie des Alten Jerusalem, Basel 1876. The best plans of modern Jerusalem are those of Zimmermann-Socin and Wilson. See vol. i. p. 19.
[1298] The situation of the Acra and the lower city is the one point most disputed in the topography of Jerusalem. By a careful expression and estimation of the sources, however, it seems to me that the above statement may be accepted with certainty. Compare vol. i. p. 206. The history of the siege by Titus confirms this. For Titus, who pressed on from the north, came into possession of the lower city only after he had taken the site of the temple, and so the lower city must have lain south of this. It reached as far as Silonh (Wars of the Jews, vi. 7. 2).
[1299] On Bezetha, compare also this point, vol. ii. p. 213.—Josephus says in Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 2: Βεζεθὰ, ὃ μεθερμηνευόμενον Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ καινὴ λέγοιτʼ ἂν πόλις. That is impossible. For Βεζεθά can be nothing else but בית זיתא, “Place of Olives.” In the statement of Josephus therefore this much may be correct, that Bezetha was also called the New City.
As the very situation of the city demanded, Titus directed his attack against the north side, hence first of all against the third wall, or to speak from the standpoint of the besiegers, the first. It was only now, when the battering-ram began their work at three points, the civil war was stilled. Then the two factions, those of John of Gischala and of Simon Bar-Giora, banded together to make a common attack. In one of these onslaughts they fought with such success that the preservation of the engines of war were wholly due to the interference of Titus, who with his own hand cut down twelve of the enemy.[1300] After fifteen days’ work one of the most powerful of the battering-rams had made a breach in the wall, the Romans pressed in, and on the 7th Artemisios, that is, Ijjar or May, were masters of the first wall.[1301]
[1300] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 6. 2-5; Suetonius, Titus 5: “duodecim propugnatores totidem sagittarum confecit ictibus.”
[1301] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 7. 2.
The attack was now directed against the second wall. Five days after the taking of the first this one also had to yield before the blow of the Roman battering-rams. Titus pressed in with a chosen band, but was driven back again by the Jews. Four days afterwards, however, he once more secured his position, and this time succeeded in maintaining it permanently.[1302]
[1302] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 7. 3-4, 8. 1-2.
He now raised earthworks at one and the same time against the upper city and against the Antonia, two against the one, and two against the other; each of the four legions had to build one. Simon Bar-Giora conducted the defence of the upper city; John of Gischala that of the Antonia.[1303] While the works were in progress, Josephus, apparently without success, was made to summon the city to surrender.[1304] The want of the means of support was already beginning to be felt, and in consequence of this many of the poorer inhabitants went out of the city in search of victuals. Whenever any of them fell into the hands of the Romans, he was crucified in sight of the city, in order to strike terror into the heart of the besieged, or was sent back with his members mutilated.[1305]
[1303] Ibid. v. 9. 2; comp. 11. 4.
[1304] Ibid. v. 9. 3-4.
[1305] Ibid. v. 10. 2-5, 11. 1-2.
On the 29th Artemisios, that is, Ijjar or May, the four ramparts were completed. Simon and John had only wished their completion, in order that they might direct all their energies to destroy again the works produced by incredible exertion and wearisome toil. Those over against the Antonia were destroyed by John of Gischala in this way: he dug a subterranean passage under them, supported it with pillars and then set fire to the supports, so that the ramparts fell in and were consumed in the fire. Two days later Simon Bar-Giora destroyed by fire those directed against the upper city.[1306]
[1306] Ibid. v. 11. 4-6.
Before Titus attempted the building of a new rampart, he made use of another device. He caused the whole city to be surrounded with a continuous stone wall (τεῖχος), in order to out off all escape and to reduce the city by famine. With marvellous smartness this work was finished in three days. Numerous armed watchmen guarded it so that no one could pass it.[1307] In consequence of this the famine reached a terrible height in the city; and if even but the half is true which the inventive imagination of Josephus has recorded, it must certainly have been horrible enough.[1308] That under such circumstances John of Gischala should have applied the sacred oil and the sacred wine to profane uses, can be regarded only by a Josephus as a reproach to him.[1309]
[1307] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 1-2; Luke 19:43. Similar circumvallations are often spoken of. The most celebrated is that of Alesia by Caesar (Bell. Gall. vii. 69: “fossamque et maceriam sex in altitudinem pedum praeduxerant; ejus munitionis, quae ab Romanis instituebatur, circuitus XI milium passuum tenebat.” Also before an attempt was made to attack it, Masada was surrounded by such a wall (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 2). Large remnants of it are to be seen to this day. It was erected of unhewn stones without the use of mortar. See Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, iii. 421, and generally the literature mentioned in note 133. Compare also Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876, p. 509.
[1308] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 3, 13. 7, vi. 3. 3. Compare Aboth derabbi Nathan c. 6 (in Derenbourg, p. 285). Well known is the tragical history of that Mary of Beth-Esôb, who was driven by hunger to devour her own child. See Wars of the Jews, vi. 3. 4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii. 6; Hieronymus, ad Joelem, i. 9 ff. (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, vi. 178); and the passages from the Talmud and Midrash in Grätz, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. p. 537 (2 Aufl. p. 401).—A mother’s devouring of her own child belongs to the traditional and customary descriptions of the horrors of war, as well in threatenings: Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:10, as in history: 2 Kings 6:28-29; Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:10; Bar_2:3.
[1309] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 6.
Meanwhile Titus caused ramparts again to be built, and this time four against the Antonia. The wood used in their construction, owing to the complete devastation of all the district around, had to be carried a distance of 90 stadia (four and a half days’ journey).[1310] After twenty-one day’ work they were completed. An attempt which John of Giechals made to destroy them on 1st Panemos, that is, Thammuz or July, was unsuccessful, since it was not carried out with the earlier energy, while the Romans had redoubled their vigilance.[1311] Scarcely had the Jews retired back again, when the battering-rams began to beat against the walls. At first they had no considerable success. The walls, however, were so shattered by the blows, that soon they sank of themselves at the points where the wall-breakers had been at work. But even yet the storming of the city was a work of difficulty, since John of Gischala had already managed to erect a second behind it. After an encouraging speech of Titus on the 3rd Panemos, that is, Thammuz or July, a Syrian soldier named Sabinus, with eleven comrades, made the attempt to scale the walls, but fell in the struggle with three of his companions.[1312] Two days afterwards, on the 5th Panemos, some twenty or thirty others banded together to renew the attempt. They mounted the wall secretly by night and cut down the first sentinels. Titus pressed as quickly as possible after them, and drove the Jews back as far as the temple site. Thence the Romans were indeed beaten back again, but they held the Antonis, which was soon razed to the ground.[1313]
[1310] Joseplius, Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 4.
[1311] Ibid. vi. 1. 1-3.
[1312] Ibid. vi. 1. 3-6.
[1313] Ibid. vi. 1. 7-8, 2. 1.
In spite of war and famine the daily morning and evening sacrifices had up to this time been regularly offered. On the 17th Panemos, that is, Thammuz or July, these had to be at last discontinued; but even then not so much on account of the famine, but rather “from the want of men.”[1314] Seeing that a renewed summons to surrender by Josephus proved again unsuccessfnl, and an attack by night of a select detachment of the army on the temple site proved a failure,[1315] Titus now made preparations for a regular siege so as to take the temple by storm. The temple site formed a pretty regular square, which was completely surrounded by strong walls, along which on the inside ran a series of corridors. On the inside of this great space the inner court, surrounded on all sides by strong walls, formed a second position capable of being defended, which afforded to the besieged even after the loss of the outer space a place of safety. Titus was obliged first of all to make himself master of the outer wall. Again four ramparts were erected, for which he was now obliged to carry the material from a distance of 100 stadia (five hours’ journey).[1316] While they were working at these, a number of Romans met with their death on the 27th Panemos in this way: they allowed themselves to be deceived by the withdrawal of the Jews from the heights of the western corridors into scaling those heights. But they had been beforehand filled by the Jews with inflammable materials. So soon then as the Romans had reached the top the Jews set fire to the vaults, and the fire spread with such rapidity that the soldiers could not escape, but were enveloped in the flames.[1317]
[1314] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 1; Mishna, Taanith iv. 6: בּשׁכְעָה עָשָׂר בְּתַמּוּז בָּטַל הַתָּמִיד. Compare on the daily morning and evening sacrifices, Div. II. vol. i. pp. 273 ff. and 278 ff.
[1315] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 2.1-6.
[1316] Ibid. vi. 2. 7.
[1317] Ibid. vi. 3. 1-2.
When the ramparts were completed on the 8th Loos, that is, Ab or August, the rams were again set to work, and the siege operations began. But on the immense walls they could make no impression. In order to obtain his end Titus caused fire to be placed at the gates, and so opened up the entrance to the outer temple space.[1318] On the next day, the 9th Ab, when the gates had been completely burnt down, Titus held a council of war, at which it was resolved that the temple should be spared.[1319] But when on the day following, the 10th Ab, the Jews made two onslaughts rapidly one after the other from the inner court, and on the second occasion were driven back by the soldiers who were occupied with the quenching of the flames in the corridors, a soldier cast a blazing brand into one of the chambers of the temple proper.[1320] When this was reported to Titus he hasted to the spot, followed by the generals and the legions. Titus gave orders to quench the fire; but in the wild conflict that now raged around the spot his commands were not heard, and the fire got ever a firmer hold upon the edifice. Even yet Titus hoped to save at least the inner court of the temple, and renewed his orders to quench the flames; but the soldiers in their excitement no longer listened to his commands. Instead of quenching the flames, they threw in new firebrands, and the whole noble work became a prey to the flames beyond redemption. Titus managed to inspect the inner court before the fire reached it.[1321]
[1318] Ibid. vi. 4. 1-2.
[1319] Ibid. vi. 4. 3.
[1320] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 4-5.
[1321] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 6-7.—According to the account given above, the burning of the temple took place on the 10th Loss=Ab, as also Josephus in Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 5, expressly states. The Rabbinical tradition places the destruction of the temple on the 9th Ab (Mishna, Taanith iv. 6: בְּתִשְׁעָה בּאָב חָרַב הַבַּיִת בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשּׁנִיָּה), and indeed early on the evening before that day (b. Taanith 29a: ערב תשעה באב, Derenbourg, p. 291); that is, in our way of reckoning, on the 8th Ab. It therefore regards as the day of destruction the day on which Titus caused fire to be laid to the gates. According to Rabbinical tradition it was Sabbath evening, מוצאי שבת, when the temple was destroyed. See vol. i. p. 41, and Derenbourg, p. 291. According to Dio Cassius, Jerusalem was destroyed ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου ἡμέρᾳ.
According to the representation of Josephus, which we have followed, Titus had expressed a wish to spare the temple proper (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3). Divergent from this is the narrative of Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon, ii. 30: “Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse, an templum tanti opens everteret. Etenim nonnullis videbatur, aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri, quae lervata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in primis templum censebant, quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur: quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus profectas; Christianes ex Judaeis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile pcrituram.” Orosius, vii. 9. 5-6, from a somewhat different point of view, ascribes the destruction to Titus. Seeing that Sulpicius Severus, as Bernays has proved, elsewhere bases his statements on Tacitus, Bernays has concluded that on this point also his statement rests on the history of Tacitus, which for this period is no longer extant, and served as model for Josephus, who wishes to free Titus from the nota crudelitatis (Bernays, Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Sevens, 1861, pp. 48-61, in his Gesammelte Werke, ii. 159-181). The following also agree with Bernays: Stange, De Titi imperatoris vita, P. 1, 1870, pp. 39-43; Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 399; Thiaucourt, Revue des études juives, t. xix. 1889, p. 65 sqq. The following vacillate: Renan, Der Antichrist, pp. 405-410; and Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 538 f. Against Bernays: Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. p. 538 f., and Hausrath, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. iii. 474. Only general assertion without reference to original sources is given by Illhardt, Titus und der jüdische Tempel (Philologus, Bd. xl. 1881, pp. 189-196). Titus, he says, had intended to preserve the temple for a time until he had seen it and plundered it, and then to destroy.—It is in fact probable that Sulpicius Severus drew upon Tacitus; but that does not prove that it was the model according to which Josephus constructed his account. This remains a mere possibility. Even the former supposition is rendered suspicious by its being based upon an alleged resolution impossible in the mouth of Titus.
While the Romans slaughtered indiscriminately all that fell into their hands, children and old men, priests and people, and intentionally fanned the terrible conflagration, so that nothing escaped the flames, John of Gischala succeeded, along with his Zealot following, to escape into the upper city. Even before the temple had been burnt down, the legions planted their standards in the temple court, and greeted their general as Imperator.[1322]
[1322] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 5. 1-2. The greeting of Titus as Imperator: Wars of the Jews, vi. 6. 1; Suetonius, Titus, 5; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7; Orosius, vii. 9. 6. On the significance of this procedure, see especially Suetonius, l.c. Titus was suspected of having fallen away from Vespasian, and of having wished to set up as an independent ruler of the East.—Further details by Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2490; Mommsen, Imperatortitel des Titus (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, Bd. iii 1871, pp. 458-478); F. J. Hoffmann, Quomodo quando Titus imperator factut sit, Bonnae 1883; Chambalu, Der Verfassungsstreit swischen Titus und Vespasian (Philologus, Bd. xliv. 1885, pp. 123-131); Pick, “Der Imperatortitel dee Titus,” in Sallet’e Zeitschrift für Numimatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, pp. 109-238. Add to these: Schiller in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, Bd. lii. pp. 17-25; Mommsen, “Zu den Münzen dee Titus,” in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Nwmismatik, Bd. xiv. 1887, pp. 31-35.
The work of the conqueror, however, was by no means completed with the overthrow of the temple. The upper city, the last refuge of the besieged, had yet to be taken. Titus once again called upon Simon and John to surrender. But the besieged wished to stipulate for liberty to go forth untouched, which would not be granted them.[1323] By order of Titus the parts of the city now in the possession of the Romans—the Ophla, the depository of the archives, the council house, the lower city down to Siloah—were set on fire, while at the same time the tyrants in the upper city continued their work of murder and plunder.[1324]
[1323] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 6. 2-3.
[1324] Ibid. vi. 6. 3, 7. 2-3.
Seeing then that there was no hope of securing the voluntary surrender of the besieged, it was necessary once more to resort to the erection of ramparts. They were constructed partly at the north-western corner of the upper city near the palace of Herod, partly at the north-eastern corner, in the neighbourhood of the so-called Xystus. On the 20th Loos (Ab, August) the buildings were begun; on the 7th Gorpiaeus (Elul, September) they were finished. The battering-rams soon made a breach in the walls, through which the soldiers with little difficulty forced their way, because the besieged in their despondent condition could no longer offer a vigorous and determined opposition.[1325] One portion of them made the attempt to break away through the besiegers’ lines and to force through the cordon which surrounded them at Siloah; but they were driven back, and rushed again into their subterranean hiding-places. Meanwhile the whole of the upper city was taken possession of by the Romans. The military standards were planted and the song of victory was sung. The soldiers passed through the city murdering, burning, and plundering. After a five months’ siege, after having been obliged laboriously to press on step by step, gaining one position after another, the whole city at last, on 8th Gorpiaeus (Elul, September), fell into the hands of the conquerors.[1326]
[1325] Ibid. vi. 8. 1-5.
[1326] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 8. 5, 10. 1.
Those of the inhabitants who had not already fallen victims to the famine or the sword were now put to death, or sent to labour in the mines, or reserved for the gladiatorial combats. The handsomest and most powerful of the men were spared to grace the triumph. Among the fugitives who were driven by hunger to go forth out of their subterranean hiding-places was John of Gischala. When he begged for mercy he was granted his life, but was sentenced to life-long confinement in prison. It was not, however, until a considerably later period that Simon Bar Giora was apprehended. He was reserved as a victim for the triumph.[1327] The city was then razed to the ground. Only the three gates of the palace of Herod—Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme—and a portion of the wall were left standing; the former as monuments of the original strength of the city, the latter as a protection for the garrison that was left in charge. The victory, won by hard fighting, and at the cost of many victims, was celebrated by Titus in an address of thanks to the army, the distribution of rewards to those who had distinguished themselves in battle, the presenting sacrifices of thanksgiving, and a festive banquet.[1328]
[1327] Ibid. vi. 9. 2, 4, vii. 2. 1-2.
[1328] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 1. 1-3.—Of the three gates of the palace of Herod, only one is preserved to the present day under the name of “David’s Tower,” commonly identified with Hippicus, but by Schick with Phasael. A minute description is given by Schick in Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 226 if. Illustrations of it may be seen in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, i. 210, in art. “Burg,” and in Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, Bd. i. p. 9.
5. THE CONCLUSION OF THE WAR, A.D. 71-73
Leaving behind him the tenth legion as a garrison in Jerusalem, Titus proceeded with the rest of his army to Caesarea-on-the-Sea, where the spoil was deposited, and the prisoners consigned to safe keeping.[1329] Thence Titus marched to Caesarea Philippi, where a portion of the prisoners were forced to engage in combat with wild animals, and to take part in the gladiatorial shows.[1330] At Caesarea-on-the-Sea, to which he returned, he celebrated the birthday of his brother Domitian, 24th October, with games on a magnificent scale. At Berytua also he celebrated in a similar manner the birthday of his father Vespasian, on 17th November. After a lengthened stay in Berytus,[1331] Titus proceeded to Antioch, giving public entertainments in the cities through which he passed, at which the Jewish prisoners were set to slay one another in gladiatorial contests. After a short stay in Antioch, he passed on to Zeugma on the Euphrates; and from thence he returned again to Antioch, and from thence proceeded to Egypt. At Alexandria he disbanded the legions. Of the prisoners there were 700 specially distinguished by their handsome appearance; and these, together with the rebel leaders John and Simon, were reserved for the triumph.[1332] Titus now sailed for Rome,[1333] was received by his father and by the people with joyful demonstrations, and in common with his father and brother celebrated, in A.D. 71, one triumph, though the Senate had assigned one separately to each of them.[1334] During the triumph Simon Bar Giora, the rebel leader, was in accordance with an old custom carried away from the festal procession to prison and executed there.[1335]
[1329] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 1. 2-3.—The tenth legion in the time of Dio Cassius, in the beginning of the third century after Christ, still remained in Judea, Dio Cassius, Leviticus 23. Not until the time of Eusebius is it spoken of as the garrison at Aela on the Red Sea (Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 210). Inscriptions, in which it is referred to, have been found recently in considerable numbers in Jerusalem. (1) A short and fragmentary one is described in full detail by Clermont-Ganueau, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’année, 1872, pp. 163-170. The same is also given in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 1871, 103; Ephemeris epigraphica, ii. p. 292, n. 345; The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, p. 427. (2) Another, somewhat more complete, is particularly treated by Zangemeister, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, x. 1887, pp. 49-53, xi. 1888, p. 138. The same is also given in Merrill, Quarterly Statements, 1886, 73. (3) Also seals with the impression upon them, Leg. X. Fretensis, have been brought to light from under the heaps of rubbish. See Clermont-Ganneau, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1872, pp. 158-163; Ephemeris epigraphica, ii. p. 293, n. 346, v. p. 618, n. 1441; Guthe, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 1882, Taf. x. fig. A; Merrill, Quarterly Statements, 1885, 133. In modern tombs “numerous relics of the tenth legion” have been found (Merrill, Quarterly Statements, 1886, 72). The richest contribution has been made by a large, catacomb-like series of tombs on the Mount of Olives, in which numerous seals have been found with the impression LXF or LXFre, which were used as a covering for particular graves. See Schick, Zeitschrift des deutsehen Palästina-Vereins, xii. 1889, pp. 198, 199. (4) On a medal of the L. X. F., which was found in Jerusalem, see De Saulcy, Revue archéologique, nouv. série, t xx. 1869, pp. 251-260; Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 83, sq. pl. v. n. 3.
[1330] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 2. 1.
[1331] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1: χρονιωτέραν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐπιδημίαν.
[1332] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 1-3.
[1333] The arrival of Titus in Rome is set down “somewhere about the middle of June A.D. 71” by Chambalu, Philologus, xliv. 1885, pp. 507-517.
[1334] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 3-7; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7. The Jewish spoils which were borne along in the triumphal procession are to be seen to the present day on the relief work on the Arch of Titus. Compare Reland, De spoliis templi Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano Romae conspicuis, Ultraj. 1716. New edition by Schulze 1775. Also in Ugolini, Thesaurus, t. ix. An engraving and a description of the Arch of Titus, which was not erected divo Tito until after the death of Titus, is given by many; among others, by Reber, Die Ruinen Roms und der Campagna, 1863, pp. 397-400. On the relief, see Philippi, “Ueber die römischen Triumphalreliefe und ihre Stellung in der Kunstgeschichte” (Abhandlungen der philol.-hist. Classe der sächs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. Bd. vi. 1874, pp. 245-306; with illustrations: Tafel ii.-iii.).—In the inscription on the Arch of Titus (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. vi. n. 945) no mention is made of the Jewish war. But another Arch of Titus, destroyed in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, which had stood in the Circus Maximus, bore the following pompous and, so far as it deals with the earlier history of Jerusalem, untrue inscription, bearing date A.D. 81, preserved in a manuscript at Einsiedeln: “Senatus populusque Romanus imp. Tito Caesari divi Vespasiani f. Vespasiano Augusto … quod praeceptis patri(is) consiliisque et auspiciis gentem Judaeorum domuit et urbem Hierusolymam omnibus ante se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam aut omnino intemptatam delovit” (Piper, Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1876, pp. 52-54; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 944; Darmesteter, Revue des études juives, t. i. 1880, p. 35 sq.; on its genuineness: Mommsen, Berichte der sächs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. philol.-hist. Cl. 1850, p. 303).—The coins of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian with the superscription: Ιουδαιας εαλωκυιας, Judaea evicta, Judaea capta, and such like, are given most fully in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 207-229. Compare also De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, p. 155 sq.; Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 79 sq.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, pp. 45-55; History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 183-197.
[1335] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 6; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7.—Simon was dragged to the place over against the Forum (Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 6: εἰς τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἐσύρετο τόπον). Upon this statement Havercamp correctly remarks: “scil. carcerem, quem Livius dicit Foro imminere.” The carcer Mamertinus lay near the Forum. There, and indeed in its lower part, the Tullianum, were, e.g., Jugurtha and the Catilinian conspirators put to death. It was the common practice to put prisoners of war to death there by strangling. Trebellius Pollio, Tyranni triginta, c. 22 (in: “Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ed. Peter): “strangulatus in carcere captivorum veterum more.” On the Carcer, see also Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Tullianum,” and Gsell-Fels, Rom. (1 Aufl.) ii. 200 if.
The conquest of the capital had certainly given to Titus the right to the celebration of the triumph. The whole of Palestine, however, was not yet by any means subdued. The strongholds of Herodium, Machärus, and Masada were still in the hands of the rebels. The reduction of these fortresses was the work of the governor of Palestine at that time, Lucilius Bassus. In regard to the Herodium, this seems to have been accomplished by him without difficulty.[1336] The siege of Machärus occupied a longer time.[1337] Yet even this strong hald, before it was taken by storm, yielded by a voluntary surrender. The decision to surrender was finally taken in consequence of the apprehension of a youth called Eleasar, who had particularly distinguished himself in the defence. Bassus threatened to crucify him in view of the city, and in order to prevent this the Jews gave over the fortress.[1338] In the meantime Lucilius Bassus died. To his successor, Flavius Silva, fell the task of taking Masada.[1339] In that fortress the Sicarii, under the leadership of Eleasar, the son of Jairi, and a descendant of Judas of Galilee,[1340] had established themselves at the commencement of the war, and had continued to maintain their position. The siege proved a very difficult business, since the rock upon which the fortress was built rose on all sides so high and steep that it was almost impossible to bring the engines of destruction near. Only at one point, and even there only by means of difficult and ingenious preparatory operations, was it possible to secure a place for a batteringram. But by the time that this machine had made a breach in the wall, the besieged had already erected behind that wall another bulwark of wood and earth, which, owing to its elasticity, could not be destroyed by the battering-ram. The enemy, however, by the use of fire succeeded in setting this obstacle also aside. When Eleasar saw that there was no longer any hope of resisting the attack, he held a council with the garrison, in which he urged that they should first of all slay the members of their own families, and then put one another to death. This, therefore, was done. When the Romans entered, they beheld with horror that no more work was left for them to do. Thus was the very last stronghold of the rebellion conquered in April A.D. 73.[1341]
[1336] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 1.—On the situation of the Herodium, see vol. i. of this work, p. 435.
[1337] Machärus in Greek: Μαχαιροῦς (so Josephus, Strabo, xvi. 2. 40, p. 763; Stephanus Byzant. s.v.) is in the Semitic languages Mechawar, מכוור or מכבא. In the Mishna, Tamid iii. 8, the editio princeps, the Cambridge Manuscript, and cod. de Rossi, 138, have מכוור; Aruch has מכבר. Both forms also occur elsewhere, but מכוור is more common. The pointing of the word מְכַוַור, Mechawar, as in cod. de Rossi, 138, is confirmed by the reading מכאוור, which a Munich Manuscript, Joma 39a, has. See Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 111 f. Also generally: Lightfoot, Opera, ii. 582. Besides this Semitic form, we have the following: Μαχαβέρως (Parthey, Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae graecae episcopatuum, 1866, p. 93) and Machaveron, as an accusative form, Tobler and Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, 1879, p. 326.—According to Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2, Machärus had been fortified as early as in the days of Alexander Jannäus. Gabinius demolished the fortress (Antiq. xiv. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5). Herod the Great fortified it anew (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). On its importance, see Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 16. 72: “Machaerus secunda quondam arx Judaeae ab Hierosolymis.”—It lay on the southern border of Peraea (Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 3), and in the time of Herod Antipas is said to have belonged to the king of Arabia (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1). Undoubtedly it is the modern Mkaur, east of the Dead Sea. See Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, ii. 330 ff., iv. 378 ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 577 f.; Raumer, Palästina, p. 264; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 335 ff.; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 329 f.; Parent, Machaerous, Paris 1868; Tristram, The Land of Moab, 2nd ed. 1874, p. 253 sqq.; Duc de Luynes, Voyage d’Exploration à la mer morte, à Petra et sur la rive gauche du Jourdain, Paris, s. a. [1874], Atlas, Sheets 36-39; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 317.
[1338] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 1, 4.
[1339] On Masada, i.e. מְצָדָה, mountain stronghold, in Strabo, xvi. 2. 44, p. 764, corrupted into Μοασάδα, see especially the comprehensive monograph of Tuch, Masada, die herodianische Felsenfeste, nach Fl. Josephus und neueren Beobachtungen, Leipzig 1863, p. 4.—It had indeed been fortified even by the high priest Jonathan (Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3), and was spoken of M an important stronghold as far back as the time of Hyrcanus II. about B.C. 42 (Antiq. xiv. 11. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 1), and during the invasion of Palestine by the Parthiane served as a safe retreat for the members of the family of Herod (Antiq. xiv. 13. 8 f., 14. 6, 15. 1 f.; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 7 f., 15. 1, 15. 3 f.). Herod the Great fortified it anew (Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3).—According to Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3, it lay near to the western bank of the Dead Sea; according to Wars of the Jews, iv. 7. 2, it was not far from Engedi. So, too, Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 17. 73: “Inde (scil. ‘from Engedi’) Masada castellum in rupe et ipsum haut procul Asphaltite.” According to this, and according to the description which Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3, gives of the locality, there can be no doubt that it is to be identified with the modern Sebbeh on the western bank of the Dead Sea south of Engedi, as Smith and Robinson were the first to recognise. The siege works of the Romans of A.D. 73 are still to be distinctly seen in that place. See generally: Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 241 ff.; Wolcott and Tipping in the Bibliotheca sacra, New York 1843; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1, p. 655 ff.; De Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte, Paris 1853, Bd. i. p. 199 ff., with atlas, pl. xi.-xiii.; Rey, Voyage dans le Haouran et aux bords de la mer morte exécuté pendant les années, 1857 et 1858, Paris; atlas, pl. xxv.-xxvi.; Tuch, Masada; Sepp, Jerusalem und das heilige Land, 2 Aufl. Bd. i. 1873, p. 821 ff., with plans and illustrations; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, pp. 298-300, with plan; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 418-421, with two plans and an illustration; and therewith Sheet xxvi. of the large English Map.
[1340] Josephue, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 9, vii. 8. 1
[1341] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 1-7, 9. 1-2.—According to vii. 9. 1, the self-slaughter of the garrison of Masada took place on the 15th Xanthicus (Nisan, April). The year is not mentioned. But since in an earlier passage, vii. 7. 1, the fourth year of Vespasian is mentioned, which began on 1st July A.D. 72 (comp. Tacitus, Hist. ii. 79), the conquest of Masada must have occurred in the spring of A.D. 73. Compare Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 614.
After the fall of Masada disturbances were made by the Jews in Alexandria and in Cyrene, which in the former place resulted in the closing of the temple of Onias at Leontopolis.[1342] But these after-vibrations of the great revolution in the mother country are scarcely worthy of being mentioned along-side of the original movement, The fate of Palestine was sealed by the overthrow of Masada. Vespasian retained the country as a private possession, and the taxes levied went into his own purse.[1343] Only to 800 veterans did he distribute grants of land at Emmaus near Jerusalem.[1344] The former temple-tax of two drachmas was henceforth exacted of all Jews for the temple, Jupiter Capitolinns.[1345] The inhabitants of Palestine became impoverished, and by the seven years’ war their numbers had been terribly reduced. A Jewish magistracy, of the kind formerly possessed, no longer existed. The one gathering point which still remained for the people was the law. Around this they gathered now with anxious and scrupulous faithfulness, and with the indomitable hope that some day, under an established civil government, and even among the nations of the world, it would come again to have a recognised place and practical authority.
[1342] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 10-11; Life, lxxvi.
[1343] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6: κελεύων πᾶσαν γῆν ἀποδόσθαι τῶν Ἰουδαίων· οὐ γὰρ κατῴκισεν ἐκεῖ πόλιν, ἰδίαν αὑτῷ τὴν χώραν φυλάττων. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 539 f. note, discovers in those words a contradiction. But such there would be only if we were to take ἀποδόσθαι in the sense of “to sell.” It means, however, also “to farm out.” The country immediately surrounding Jerusalem had been given over to the tenth legion (Josephus, Life, lxxvi.).
[1344] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6: ὀκτακοσίοις δὲ μόνοις ἀπὸ τῆς στρατιᾶς διαφειμένοις χωρίον ἔδωκεν εἰς κατοίκησιν, ὃ καλεῖται μὲν Ἀμμαοῦς, ἀπέχει δὲ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων σταδίους τριάκοντα. The reading here vacillates between τριάκοντα and ἑξήκοντα. Since the two best manuscripts have τριάκοντα, and since ἑξήκοντα is evidently an emendation in accordance with Luke 24:13, the former is to be regarded as the correct reading. Accordingly our Emmaus cannot be the same as that Emmaus otherwise known, situated somewhere about 20 or 21 miles from Jerusalem, which, from the time of Julius Africanus, in the beginning of the third century after Christ, was called Nicopolis. On it see Div. II. vol. i. p. 159; Henderson, Handbook on Palestine, pp. 165-167; Gelzer, Julius Africanus, i. 5-7. Sozomen distinctly declares that the latter: μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ τὴν κατὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νίκην, had the name of Nicopolis (Hist. eccl. v. 21); and the coins of Emmaus-Nicopolis are supposed to have an era from about A.D. 70. See, with reference to this point, Belley in the Mémoires de l’Acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres, alte serie, Bd. xxx. 1764, pp. 294-306; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 454; Mionnet, Description de médailles ant. v. 550 sq., Suppl. viii. 376; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 172-175, 406, pl. vi. 3-5: De Saulcy in Annuaire de la Société française de Num. et d’Archéol. t. iii. 2, 1869, pp. 275-278; De Saulcy in Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 147 sq. For this reason, in spite of the indication of distance in Josephus, the military colony of Vespasian is by many identified with Emmaus-Nicopolis. So e.g. Kuhn, Die Städt. und bürgerl. Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 356 f.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 428; Gelzer, Julius Africanus, i. 5-7; with hesitation: Grotefend in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 115. But the assertion of Sozomen, who only casually throws out this suggestion, and probably hastily draws this conclusion only from the name Nicopolis, is confronted by the definite and positive statement of Eusebius and other chroniclers, according to which Nicopolis had not been founded earlier than the time of Julius Africanus, and only then received this name. According to Eusebius, Chronicon. ad ann. Abr. 2237, ed. Schoene, ii. 178 sq.=Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 499, in the time of Helesgabalus; according to Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 676, in the time of Alexander Severus. Compare also generally: Jerome, De viris illustriis, c. 63=Opera, ed. Vallarai, ii. 903, and an anonymous writing, probably from the Church history of Philip of Side, dating about A.D. 430, which De Boor has edited according to a Codex Baroccianus [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, edited by Gebhardt and Harnack, v. 2,1888, pp. 169,174f.]. Yet another is given in Reland, Palaestina, p. 759. The chief passage in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 178 sq., runs as follows in the Armenian: “In Palestina antiqua Emmaus restaurata est Nicopolisque vocata cura [praefectura] et interpellatione Julii Africani chronographi ad regem;” according to Jerome: “In Palaestina Nicopolis quae prius Emmaus vocabatur urbs condita est, legationis industriam pro ea suscipiente Julio Africano scribtore temporuin;” according to the Chronicon Paschale: Παλαιστίνης Νικόπολις ἡ πρότερον Ἐμμαοῦς ἐκτίσθη πόλις, πρεσβεύοντος ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς καὶ προϊσταμένου Ἰουλίου Ἀφρικανοῦ τοῦ τὰ χρονικὰ συγγραψαμένου. That this is correct, and that the statement of Sozomen is false, is further proved by this, that writers before Heliogabulus are acquainted only with the name Emmaus. So Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 14. 70; Ptolemy, v. 16. 7. In the Itinerarium Antonini it is not met with at all. Also Josephus, who frequently mentions this Emmaus, never makes the remark that it is now called Nicopolis, whereas elsewhere he does not omit such notices. The existence of coins of the Palestinian Nicopolis before Heliogabulus, and with an era from about A.D. 70, is, however, very questionable indeed. See the critical remarks by De Saulcy in Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 172-175, and Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, t. v. 1884, p. 619. The coin described by De Saulcy in the Appendix, p. 406, is very uncertain as to reading. In the Mélanges de Numismatique, ii. 147 sq., De Saulcy reports that he had received from Jerusalem a copy of the coin described by Belley of the year 72 aer. Nicop., which was minted after the death of Faustina, who died A.D. 141. But the place of its discovery being Jerusalem, does not prove that the coin belonged to the Palestinian Nicopolis. It may, e.g., have belonged to the Egyptian city of that name. It may even be matter of question whether we should not read PO=170, instead of BO=72, according to the era of Augustus. We have therefore no dependable testimony of the founding of an Emmaus-Nicopolis about A.D. 70. Against the identification of the military colony of Vespasian with this Emmaus-Nicopolis, it may be alleged, besides Josephus’ account of its distance, that the military colony of Vespasian is not called Nicopolis by Josephus, and that, on the other hand, every characteristic feature of a colony is wanting in Emmaus-Nicopolis. Our Emmaus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6) is most probably rather to be identified with the New Testament Emmaus, Luke 24:13, although the distance in the two cases, respectively 30 and 60 furlongs, are only approximately correct. It has been shrewdly conjectured that our Emmaus, in which Vespasian founded a Roman colony, is identical with the modern Culonie near Jerusalem. So Sepp, Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. i. 54-73; Ewald, History of Isral, vii. 553, 612; Hitzig, Geschichte, ii. 623; Caspuri, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 242; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 306; Furrer in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, ii. 107 if.; Fr. W. Schultz in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xi. 771. In an inscription found at Emmaus-Nicopolis mention indeed is made of a mil(es) [leg. V.] Mac, Ephemeris epigraphica, t. v. p. 620, n. 1446. But the designation as miles, instead of as veteranus, is against the conjecture that it can refer to one of the veterans settled by Vespasian. In A.D. 68 a fortified camp of the fifth legion was placed at Emmaus, and remained a long time, probably until A.D. 70 (Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1, v. 1. 6.).
[1345] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6; Dio Cassius, iv. 8. 1. Compare Div. II. vol. i. p. 251.