Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic


End Times Chart

Introduction and Key


Josephus: Henry Leeming: Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (2003) "This volume presents in English translation the Slavonic version of Josephus Flavius' "Jewish War, long inaccessible to Anglophone readers, according to N.A. Materskej's scholarly edition, together with his erudite and wide-ranging study of literary, historical and philological aspects of the work, a textological apparatus and commentary. The synoptic layout of the Slavonic and Greek versions in parallel columns enables the reader to compare their content in detail. It will be seen that the divergences are far more extensive than those indicated hitherto."

Josephus Pleads Still

Flavius Josephus

Study Archive

The Wars of the Jews Library ﻩ Exhaustive Bibliography ﻩ Visual Timeline | Works of Flavius Josephus ﻩ Josephus in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ﻩ Ancient Histories of Flavius Josephus ﻩ Flavius Josephus Home ﻩ PACE ﻩ Josephus, the Primary Source ﻩ Scientific Dating ﻩ Governmental Administrations ﻩ First Century Jerusalem ﻩ Historical Maps ﻩ Maps of Jerusalem

Flavius Josephus : Credibility and Importance : Steve Mason Stebbing's Essay | The Credibility Of Josephus ﻩ The Jewish millionaire who surrendered to the Romans ﻩ David Chilton's Synopsis

Preterist Perspectives ﻩ Effects of the Fall of Jerusalem on Christianity ﻩ Did Jerusalem Christians Flee to Pella? | Josephus and Jesus ﻩ Revelation and Josephus

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main




The Time of the Destruction of the Temple

By Ivan Lewis

As the years approached the seventh decade of the first century A.D. the internal life of the Jewish home was not greatly affected by the war that raged outside its walls. All the laws and customs governing the life of the people were already strongly established to the smallest detail; the regulations concerning the daily prayers, the observance of the Sabbath, and the holy days were clearly defined. The same was true regarding family organization, permissible and prohibited marriages, financial disputes among Jews, as well as the punishment of offenses against the public order. There were also well-established dietary regulations and rules of cleanliness. All customs regarding offerings to the priests and the obligations toward the poor were defined. Even questions pertaining to the offering of sacrifices, that many scholars no longer considered as the most important foundation of the Jewish faith, and the laws affecting life and death, that had been taken out of the jurisdiction of the Jewish courts, were codified in great detail together with their traditions and forms. But all of this legislation was not yet written down and the people had to guard it in their memory for use in future interpretations of the law. We may say definitely that the whole "oral law" as we have it today was already completed by that time. Such disputes as arose over interpretation came about as a result of the law not being written and contained only in the memory of the students.

In the observance of everyday customs everyone had his own traditions and these varied only slightly. But the regulations regarding cleanliness and the laws pertaining to the offering of sacrifices, that were no longer practiced, were increasingly disputed as time went on. Many of the regulations pertaining to sacrifices were forgotten soon after their offering was discontinued, and it frequently occurred that a later scholar who never witnessed the service in the Temple had to correct an older scholar who had witnessed the service but whose recollections were vague.

A rule was therefore adopted that whenever one expressed an opinion about a practice no longer observed, such an opinion had only a theoretical significance as to the desirable form of the observance, but it did not serve as proof that this had actually been the form when the practice was observed in the past.

Laws affecting civil disputes involving monetary matters attained a high level of development. This was especially the case in the matter of offering proof in numerous forms, depending on the nature of the case; at times it was necessary to bring witnesses, at other times an oath, a written document or other proof of possession was required.

Usually two witnesses were required in such law suits. They they had to be men of high moral standards and their testimony had to coincide. For this reason no am ha'aretz was eligible to be a witness, nor a person who might be suspected of falsifying his testimony out of fear of one of the litigants, or through irresponsible levity. Women, children, cripples (blind and deaf) and fools who cannot judge what they see were also ruled out as witnesses. Similarly relatives of the litigants were rejected, and in case both witnesses were related only one of them was allowed to testify. Persons known as "wicked," that is gamblers, pigeon thieves, and loan sharks were ruled out because they were already considered robbers who deprived people of their money. The same was true of persons who dealt in fruit of the sabbatical year or who were suspected of robbery. Among those also not qualified to testify were tax collectors for the Roman government, shepherds who grazed their herds in strangers' fields, and people suspected of having a personal interest in the case.

There were cases when the court had to be satisfied with the testimony of only one witness. Thus, the testimony of one witness to the death of a person was sufficient to free the widow to remarry. In other cases where the plaintiff could produce only one witness, the defendant could swear to his innocence and thus invalidate the testimony. Similar to this was the case of a woman who came before the court in times of peace and declared that her husband was dead. If she was known to have lived happily with him, her testimony was accepted as valid, in spite of the fact that women were not allowed to testify, and despite the rule that no one might testify on his own behalf.

When hearing a witness, the court had to impress upon him the possible significance of his words and to cross-question him minutely. If the witnesses contradicted each other, the testimony of both was ruled out. If they recanted their testimony, they were considered false witnesses, and the punishment that was to be meted out to the defendant was imposed upon them. In some cases it was possible to convict a defendant on the basis of testimony of witnesses who had not seen the crime themselves but who had heard of it from the defendant. But there were also limitations; for example, a man could not be convicted on his own confession even though such a confession was worth the testimony of a hundred witnesses, for no man could make himself out to be wicked. An oath was exacted when there were no witnesses or when only one witness appeared against the defendant. Similarly, watchmen who disclaimed responsibility for damages to property in their charge had to take an oath. This was also the case when a defendant admitted part of his guilt, or one who denied guilt and was confronted by one witness. There were also cases when the plaintiff had to take an oath. These included workmen who claimed they had not been paid, the victim of a robbery where the defendant pleaded not guilty, and the case of a man suspected of falsehood but against whom there were no witnesses.

The best proof in a lawsuit was a written document attesting to a loan, an engagement, a marriage, or a divorce. Other documents recognized were contracts of sale or purchase, wills affecting inheritance, certificates of gift, receipts, mortgages, evaluation of property during the division of an inheritance, certificates of alimony to a deserted wife or children, written declaration of a married minor rejecting her husband, statements of arbitration, and numerous others. Sometimes an oath was required in addition to the written documents, whenever the signatures were doubtful. Circumstantial evidence was highly regarded. Property in possession of a person was considered to be his own, and any claim to it had to be proved by the claimant.

People were at that time imbued with a strong desire to fortify and define their faith and it is remarkable that, in spite of the unfavorable political position of the Jews, Judaism nevertheless gained adherents, and many neighboring peoples came closer to it. It may be assumed that the period was one of spiritual crisis among the heathen nations. Tiring of their idols, many people confusedly speculated that the forces of nature were not gods but part of an invisible power that governs the forces of nature. When they heard that Jews worshipped such an invisible God, many came to Judea to acquaint themselves with the worshippers of this God.

It was characteristic that the seekers after a new truth belonged mainly to the upper educated strata of their nations. Adiabene, a small buffer state on the banks of the Tigris, was then ruled by Queen Helene. This queen was married to her brother lzates, and after his death she visited Jerusalem. Deeply impressed by what she saw and especially by the religious ceremonials of the Temple, she was converted and adopted Judaism. Later her son, lzates II, also joined the faith. It is probable that some of the Jewish scholars of that time were not too happy over the new converts. It seems certain that the strict regulations against proselytes and the sharp expres- sions against them in the Talmud such as, "proselytes are as difficult for Jews as a swelling," all date from this period. The troubles Jews had withstood from the Samaritans and the ldumeans, taught them to be careful in admitting new converts. Most of the proselytes of that time were women. Conversion was more difficult for men and fewer of them adopted Judaism. When King lzates II decided to become a Jew, one of the scholars taught him the precepts of Judaism and told him rather than arouse the anger of his countrymen he must not undergo circumcision; it would be sufficient if he recognized the principles of the Jewish religion and the overlordship of an invisible God. But lzates was later circumcised, when he realized that without this rite he was deprived of the rights of a Jew.

Many highly placed persons strove toward the Jewish faith. They were intrigued by the high moral teachings of the Jewish religion, although they did not highly regard the Jew as a person. It therefore seems certain that were the political situation of the Jewish nation more favorable, all the surrounding nations would have embraced Judaism.

It is also remarkable that some of the scholars of that time were not overly concerned with the continued existence of the Temple. Many events transpired then were not recorded, and those that history did note express a definite tendency of . thought. And it seems certain that some scholars considered the development of the Law more important than the maintenance of the Temple. They probably reasoned that were the Temple to be destroyed it could be rebuilt in more auspicious times, but if the Torah were neglected it might spell the doom of the Jewish nation.

It is also evident that some scholars did not attach much importance to the offering of sacrifices, while others carefully pondered the minutest details of the Temple service. This, however, took place after the Temple was destroyed and it was only after this that its significance as a central national force dawned upon people. Only then did those who considered the Temple to be of minor importance in the Jewish religion grasp its importance. Revolutionary sentiment died down after the rebels were slaughtered or led captive to Rome to fight with wild beasts in its arenas. A new concept of the significance of sacrifices was then gained. It was now understood that when the text says that sacrifices are offered as "pleasing odors" it was not meant that God enjoys the odor of burnt flesh, but rather that He is satisfied to see men do His will. When it was no longer possible to offer sacrifices, some scholars held that fasts and self-inflicted suffering are considered by God to be worthier than burnt offerings, while others maintained that prayer was of greater importance than sacrifices.

While the revolution was raging throughout the land the Temple service was conducted as usual. At the same time, many scholars sought to escape from the revolution-torn city, and they established a new sanctuary for the study of the Law in Jabneh.

The Romans did not yet persecute the study of the Law, for in those days they did not see any danger in the Law to the unity of the Roman empire. They paid no attention to scholarly pursuits as long as the Jews regularly paid their taxes. It also seems certain that the Romans would not have destroyed the Temple were it not for their allies among the Jews who constantly reminded them that as long as the Temple remained in existence Jews would never submit to Roman rule, and no matter how they were persecuted they would continue to revolt.

Among the friends of the Romans who constantly insisted that the Temple must be destroyed because its continued existence gave encouragement to the embattled Jews, were the Jewish king, Agrippa II, and his sister Berenice. Berenice was not noted for modesty in her personal life, and she became the mistress of Titus, commander of the Roman army in Judea. The relations between Titus and Berenice are described in the Talmud by: "He held a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies." (Gittin 57b). Just as the Talmud never referred to Herod except as "the ldumean slave" so also did they refer to Berenice as a "harlot."

Historical legend relates that Titus commanded his soldiers not to harm the Temple. But Agrippa and Berenice refused to obey him in this matter and hinted to the soldiers that they would never subdue the revolt as long as the Temple remained intact. Berenice is said to have climbed on the shoulders of a Roman soldier and with her own hand to have thrown the burning torch that set fire to the Temple. When Titus heard the Temple was burning, he ran to help put out the fire, but the flames had already enveloped the whole building. It is obvious that there is no sin against historical truth if one doesn't believe this legend. It was originated by Josephus who is not entirely trustworthy when chronicling the role of Titus and King Agrippa in the destruction of the Temple. The revolt lasted many years. It was not concentrated in one locality but flared up in different sections of the country until it assumed a general nature, and on a certain day the priests refused to offer the daily sacrifice for the welfare of the Roman emperor, and also rejected sacrifices offered by nonJews who lived in Judah.

Friends of the Roman government immediately informed them of the new rebel tactics. When Roman soldiers were dispatched to enforce the offering of the sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor and to force the acceptance of the sacrificial offerings of the non-Jews, the patriots occupied the Temple and killed many of the soldiers who were stationed in Jerusalem and its vicinity.

This action caused great confusion among the Jews because it was unauthorized, and many prominent persons in Jerusalem publicly expressed their displeasure. For their expression of loyalty to the Romans, the zealots executed many of them as well as numerous others whom they suspected of secret sympathy with the Romans.

Later, others declared that since the deed could not be undone, it was necessary to wait for the reaction of Rome, meanwhile fortifying the cities in anticipation of the coming of the enemy.

There lived in Jerusalem then three wealthy men who belonged to aristocratic families who could trace their descent as far back as King Saul and Moses. They were Nakdimon ben Gurion, Ben Kalba Savua, and Ben Tzizit Hakeset. These three undertook to supply the city with wheat and barley, wine and oil, as well as salt and wood, for the duration of the siege of Jerusalem even were to last many years.

But the zealots were eager to come out in open struggle against the Romans, and they felt sure that they were strong enough for the contest. They feared that the presence of large supplies of food during the forthcoming siege might induce the people to stay within the walls and discourage them from attacking the enemy outside the gates. Angry with the offer of the wealthy men, in the dark of night they burned the store rooms filled with grain. A great famine then followed, such as the city had never experienced before.

The Roman governor meanwhile incited the Greek population of Caesarea against their Jewish neighbors. When news of this clash became known, the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem attacked the Greeks as well as other non-Jews within the city. This mutual enmity quickly enveloped the whole country, and whenever Jew and non-Jew met, a battle ensued in which the weaker side was given no mercy.

These clashes spread to Acco, Haifa, Ashkelon, and other cities and also affected the Jews of Alexandria who until this time had lived in peace. When the news reached Alexandria, the Greek population began to attack the Jews and, meeting with resistance, they started a war of annihilation against them. The leader of the Greeks was a Jewish apostate, Tiberius Alexander.

The chronicles of these violent events speak of tens of thousands of people being killed. While it is possible that some of these figures are exaggerated, there remains no doubt that large numbers perished and the horrors of the situation were not exaggerated.

When the Romans finally decided to suppress the Jewish insurrection, their army was put under the command of Galus. With him was the Jewish King Agrippa who acted as his guide and who instructed the soldiery to kill all whom they met. Meanwhile the disturbances within Jerusalem gained in intensity from day to day and a violent struggle raged between those who wanted peace and the militants who demanded war. Outside the cities, the Jewish warriors showed feats of prodigious valor that terrified the Romans to such an extent that many of them deserted their camp and joined the Jews in the struggle for liberation.

The story in the Talmud about the disputes between the school of Shammai (who wanted war) and the school of Hillel (who wanted peace) that says that "a sword was placed within the Temple, and it was announced that one might enter, but he might not leave until a decision was arrived at" (Shabbat 17a) is interpreted by some historians to refer to these times. On another occasion it is told that "the disciples of Shammai stood at the foot of the wall armed with swords and spears and they beat the disciples of Hillel." (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:4)

Others campaigned for war by means of the written word. In order to arouse the people against their insufferable troubles, the Megillat Tuanit was written, citing all the inflictions the Jews had withstood throughout their existence. Still others wrote Megillat Bet Chashmonai, the story of the Hasmonean family, that told of the causes of the Hasmonean revolt in order to remind the people of the great miracles that transpired when a small handful of valiant Jews undertook the struggle against the mighty Greeks. All of this was aimed to encourage the rebels in the belief that God would certainly aid them against the Romans even though their military forces were small. The greatest error the leaders of the war against Rome committed was when they appointed Josephus to head the war in Galilee. In his history of the war, Josephus relates the tricks and intrigues he resorted to in his fight against the insurrection until the destruction of the Temple. He then received an appointment from the Roman emperor, and out of gratitude to Rome he assumed the surname Flavius which was also the name of the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. To save the situation, the Romans dispatched a horde of 600,000 armed men under the leadership of Vespasian against the Jewish rebels. Vespasian, noted for his victories over the Germans, proceeded to storm the fortresses outside Jerusalem in an attempt to cut that city off from all avenues of escape. He was always successful in using traitors who informed him of the weaknesses of the various cities and how they might best be taken. His conduct lacked all the ethics of combat, and whenever he occupied a city, after promising to spare its inhabitants, he invariably broke his promise and brutally slaughtered them.

The Jews fought with indescribable heroism but they were everywhere betrayed and the Romans took one city after another. Jerusalem alone remained steadfast and would not surrender, but it was afflicted by another difficulty. Tens of thousands of refugees from the surrounding towns fled into the city and attempted to dictate the activities of its inhabitants. A large portion of the Jerusalem population would have been glad to end the insurrection in any way possible, but the zealots considered them traitors and once a man was stamped with the suspicion of treason he could easily be killed. The internal conflicts of the Jerusalem Jews as well as the famine that broke out after the food supplies were burned were a great encouragement to Vespasian who saw in them a sign that the gods were favoring him. Secure in the belief that Rome would triumph in the end, he was satisfied to watch the Jews aid him in his work.

Vespasian then entrusted the conduct of the war to his son Titus who maintained friendly relations with King Agrippa II, with Josephus, and was also on intimate terms with Princess Berenice. They instructed him what means to employ and, knowing the city was without food, pointed out how he could also cut off its water supply. When these attempts brought no results, Titus announced to the besieged that he would provide food and drink to all those who would come out to him and that he would also permit them to return to the city. Many of the besieged were deceived by these promises, and as could be expected, Titus did not keep his promise. Some of the deserters were given salty food but no water; others were crucified in front of the fortress in full view of the besieged; still others had their arms cut off, and so were returned to the city. But in spite of the siege, the Temple service continued until the 17th day of Tamuz. Throughout long months, the inhabitants had had nothing to eat, but the daily sacrifice was offered until the last lamb was gone and not even a handful of flour was left in the city. Thus the sacrifice ended and the fire on the altar was extinguished.

With the aid of famine and plagues, internal conflict and other suffering reached such a stage that the people were forced to become cannibalistic, and the Romans conquered Jerusalem. But even when the Romans were already within the gates of the city, the Jews continued to fight valiantly until they saw the Temple in flames and only then did they lose their courage.

No one believed that God would permit His Temple to be destroyed, and when this finally did happen, everyone within the city, men and women, young and old, were crazed with despair. Thousands cast themselves into the fire while others fell on their own swords.

The burning of the Temple marked a spiritual crisis in Jewish life. Life now centered about the Law and Jerusalem was superseded by Jabneh.

After four years of bloody warfare Jerusalem lay devastated, the Temple destroyed, the best people were killed or sold as slaves into the copper and lead mines. The young men of the aristocratic families were forced to run after the triumphal chariot of Titus carrying the Temple vessels that became Roman booty, and after the celebration of the triumph they had to face each other as well as wild animals in battles staged in the Roman arenas for the pleasure of the populace.

These spectacles were visited by the ex-King Agrippa, his sister Berenice, and Josephus who later described those wars in a tone of praise for Vespasian.

Jabneh had developed into an important city during the revolt, preceding the destruction of the Temple. Its population was so large that the city had provided 40,000 men for the war; it may therefore be reckoned that its population was about 200,000. When the Romans spared the city, they hardly knew the strength inherent in the Torah and how dangerous for them it might become.

It seems certain that many of the scholars left Jerusalem before the destruction of the Temple because they refused to participate in the revolt. They settled in Jabneh that was apparently not affected by the tumult of war. When Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai visited the Emperor Vespasian in his camp, he found favor in his eyes and Vespasian asked him to make a request. Rabban Yochanan did not ask that Jerusalem or the Temple be spared, but he requested that Jabneh and its scholars be saved. This clearly indicates that Jabneh was already the home of a large number of scholars.

Jabneh then became the center of Judaism-a new Jerusalem without a Temple or sacrifices. A new Sanhedrin was organized and assumed the rights of the previous Sanhedrin of Jerusalem to regulate Jewish life according to the interpretations of the Law. The scholars of Jabneh were of no less stature than those of Jerusalem. They would not have been chosen had they not been men of great religious and secular learning. They were also masters of the languages of the neighboring peoples, so as to be able to try cases between Jews and non-Jews without having to resort to outside experts and interpreters.

The scholars of Jabneh gathered in a place called "the vineyard of Jabneh." The meaning of this name is not entirely clear and some claim that it refers to their manner of being seated in rows just as vines are planted in a vineyard.(Jerusalem Talmud Beraakhot 4). In Jabneh the decision was finally made that in all disputes between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel, the law should be practiced according to the school of Hillel. This decision was arrived at as a result of a bat kol* to announce that the opinions of the school of Shammai are also from God but that only the opinions of the school of Hillel should be put into practice. (Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:4)
*(Note: Opinions vary regarding the exact nature of the bat kol. Some declare it to be a natural phenomenon, while other say it is an expression of the will of God. According to the first it is a reflection of popular opinion, a voice from among the people, while the later say it is a voice from heaven. When the Talmud states that after the death of the last prophets - Haggai, Zachariah, & Malachi - the Holy Spirit appeared no more and the bat kol took its place, Tosefot remarks that "some say they did not hear a voice coming from heaven but only an echo such as one hearas reflected." [Sanhedrin 11])

When the people saw that sacrifices were no longer offered, they fell into great despair. Many of them could not understand the value of the prayers that were substituted for the sacrifices, and the weaker ones joined the various religious sects that sought a new god outside of the Jewish faith. It was then that the tanna (scholar) Shmuel Hakatan established the prayer against the disbelievers {birkat haminim) cursing all those who depart from the Jewish faith to be taken from among the living. Many laws were systemized in Jabneh and special attention was paid to determining the first of the month and the feast days. This calendar was also valid for the Jews of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and Babylon.

Jabneh thus became a place of refuge for fugitives from the strife in Jerusalem. While the tumult of war still resounded and the hearts of people bled at the sight of the dead and wounded and the sound of Roman cheers, this group of scholars forged the essence of the Jewish nation. It was not difficult for them to find what they sought. They realized that the Law was the only hope for continued national existence, and their work could not be hindered by strangers nor by all the legions of Rome. While the enemy could kill people, destroy the Temple, and lay waste the land, he could not annihilate the spirit of the nation.

After a short time a court having the same powers as the court in Jerusalem was also founded in Jabneh. The text of the Bible stating "if a thing shall be hidden from you in a judgment between blood and blood, or between one claim and another, or between one damage and another in a dispute within your gates, you shall arise and go to the place which the Lord God will choose" (Deut. 17:8) they interpreted to mean that the court gives authority to the place where it is located, and not the place to the court. It was therefore concluded that Jabneh might also be such a place.

Jabneh came to be considered the equal of Jerusalem in the matter of some customs such as the blowing of the shofar (ram's horn) on Rosh Hashanah when the first day of the year falls on a Sabbath. It had been previously prohibited to blow the shofar on the Sabbath outside of Jerusalem where no sacrifices were offered.

It is related that the introduction of this custom in Jabneh met with some difficulties. Prominent opponents of this measure, such as the men of Bathyra whose ancestors once headed the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, could not agree that Jabneh should be considered the equal of Jerusalem in sanctity, and that the blowing of the shofar on a Sabbath should be permitted within it. They wanted to debate the matter with Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, but he said: "Let us first blow the shofar and then we shall debate the issue." When they wanted to debate the question after this was done, he said: "Now that the sound of the shofar has been heard in Jabneh, it is useless to debate the matter."

Until then, it was customary for the head of the Court to announce the beginning of the new month, but in Jabneh it was ruled that any member of the court might announce it even in the absence of the head of the court.

The basis for these new innovations was that with the destruction of the Temple, the needs of the people had changed in accordance with the new political situation. The great changes brought about by those events eliminated the original purpose of many of the customs, and they had to be changed according to the new state of affairs. It is characteristic of the people that they adapted themselves rapidly to the changed circumstances and looked at the present and toward the near future instead of to the past.

As the people devoted themselves to the observance of the commandments according to the traditions of oral law, they gained the necessary strength to rise above the gloom of the present and to concentrate their thoughts on spiritual matters. Their first activity was to gather all the traditions and put them in writing. Seeing that many old customs were being forgotten and that even some scholars, who were active in the academy, sometimes forgot what they had seen, they began to collect in book form all the traditional customs and laws, including those that were no longer practiced after the destruction of the Temple.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ Opened in 1996