Talk:First Jewish–Roman War

Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|First Jewish–Roman War]] Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Tmbox

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KaiArwas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Name of this article.

Simple question: is this the best name for this article? I've always referred to it as 'The Jewish war' (maybe the 'first Jewish war' or perhaps 'The (first) Jewish revolt'. I'm coming from a scholarly Christian environment, so I'm particularly interested in how Jewish works refer to it. Hyam Maccoby refers to it as 'The Jewish war against Rome' - but I don't know how typical he is --Doc (?) 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember where exactly I got the title from (Josephus?) but I thought it is common enough. I am not a scholar, though. Does First Jewish-Roman War sound better?

Unrelated to this, I think the article titled Great Uprising should be renamed into something more sensible. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've always known/referred to it as either the Jewish War or periphrastically as something like the Fall of Jerusalem or the Destruction of the Temple. Jewish War is also the standard English title of Josephus' work (I think we all have at least seen the Pelican translation, and most reading this probably own a copy). To be frank, I've never heard of "Great Jewish Revolt" in any context. I don't think Josephus ever referred to it this way. And speaking of Josephus's Jewish War, a major rehab is in order. This is an extraordinarily important work of history. --FourthAve 23:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy with per Humus sapiens. Either that or 'Jewish War (66-73)' (but that may be too akward}. I'd prefer simply 'Jewish-War' (but would be confused with Josephus' work) or simply 'The Jewish-Roman War' but that might be confused with Bar Kokhba. Any takers or objections to 'First Jewish-Roman War' then? --Doc (?) 22:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tabbed and marked this as a proposed move to First Jewish-Roman War - I'll do it in a few days, unless someone objects, or beats me to it. --Doc (?) 11:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 18:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't but part of me wants to disagree just because it is taken from that prick Josephus- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 04:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish-Roman War is misleading. In a vast majority of Jewish studies, it is most commonly known simply as "The Great Revolt" (e.g. Jewish Virtual Library). Given that this was by far the largest revolt, and the biggest catastrophe for the Jewish people, it can easily be distinguished versus the remaining and much smaller revolts. Britannica labels it as the "First Jewish Revolt". Therefore I propose that we combine the two for context purposes to: The Great Jewish Revolt. I am open for discussion, but according to my research, the term "War" to me signifies a group consensus and complete adoption, which it most certainly was not. It was more of an uprising by the people, which more closely identifies with resistance as opposed to a more formally recognized declaration.

Supposed challenge to Josephus about Masada

Ben-Yehuda does not challenge Josephus' account of a mass suicide by the besieged on Masada. Rather, he refutes, by reference to Josephus, the modern mythologising that casts those besieged, and their group suicide, as heroic. Josephus, the "Masada myth" that Ben-Yehuda criticises, and Ben-Yehuda himself fully agree that the suicides took place.

So I have taken out the "this view has been challenged". I left the reference in, though, because it applies even so.

Lonewolf BC 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben Yehuda notes that the archaeological findings do not support the idea of mass suicide exactly since only a few remains were found. The view has also been challenged by others. Shaye Cohen noted that the story that the Romans breached the walls but waited until the next day to enter Masada is a bit fishy. [[Mewnews (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Jewish success, the Fall

If I was a Roman I would consider "Jewish success" to be biased, non-neutral, racist, bigoted. Just like 99% of WP. Happy holiday, MF's. Fourtildas (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is "Roman losses" any better, colleague? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is poorly written and full of inaccuracies. Pretty poor show.

This is becoming a perpetual habit of Wikipedia. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is written mainly from primary sources (Josephus). It is not much help for inclusion in the relevant sections of Antisemitism and History of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So correct it. Take, for instance, the X Fretensis: that legion was left in Syria by Julius Caesar (it was his favourite unit, take for example the famous signifer leap leading his troops ashore in Britain) during the Civil War well over a hundred years before, and although recruiting from the Minervois north of Narbonne in France (the area's modern name still recalling the Legion's tutellary goddess), it never moved, despite at least one major reorganisation. So the suggestion that it landed with Vespasian from Rome is just plain wrong, the legion's LXF stamp on all the Sephoris and Caesarea Maritime roof tiles dating from c30BCE show it was well implanted in Judea and all Vespasian did was call on the garrison force. Some reference works here: Caesar's Legion, Stephen Dando-Collins, Template:ISBN. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series #60, Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Comference Centre (Binyanei Ha'uma) Template:ISBN.

A further point. Josephus is NOT a primary source. His entire commission from Vespasian was to take the primary sources, consolidate them, and write a warts-and-all history of the Jewish War with insider knowledge, and that makes him a very authoritative secondary source, not least because his study was vetted from a very modern viewpoint by Vespasian himself, who wanted to learn lessons from an external observer's criticism of his own failings. Some critics suggest Josephus spun his own role, but then what author does not put something of himself into his work? Indeed, almost all history is written from the victor's viewpoint. The warning suffices to allow us to take appropriate pinches of salt.

Tens of thousands on crosses around Jerusalem cannot possibly be accurate. That number needs to be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.189.192 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your source, please? This kind of subjective thinking is what's wrong here in the first place. The reason I'm not tackling it is that WP refuses to value primary sources, reducing itself to third-hand commentary by rejecting OR, which is too often used to mean "working from primary sources", and thereby falling victim to exactly this kind of subjectivity. A balance is needed, representing secondary sources where authoritative, placing them in the context of the primary references. And where authoritative secondary sources do not exist, then the primary sources should most certainly be used alone, but appropriately annotated and cross-referenced.

yes i do agree what you say because it would be fair to other people so ya i do agree with you Why is Phaissees in the list of opponents when the word pharisees is listed only once this page?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.249.198 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

In addition to Antiquities, which is not very relevant, and Jewish War, Josephus wrote his "Autobiography" which is directly relevant and details fighting in the Galilee. This can be found also in the article on Josephus - at least that should be consulted! [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]

Blaming the Revolt on Caligula?!?!

Seriously? First off, there were pleanty of Jewish-Greek tenions prior to Caligula. Second, Caligula reigned from 38-42 and the revolt wasn't until 66. Third, Caligula's statue never went up in Jerusalem (Caligula period riots were over a Greek clay alter). Fourth, Caligula's religous policy only varied in Rome (making Senators honor him as a God). Augustus and Tiberius commonly referred to as a living god in the east already.

Image copyright problem with Image:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg

The image Image:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How are we able to call it the second temple, if there is no evidence for a first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

AD vs CE edits.

Per WP:ERA, the use of CE vs AD as abbreviations after dates should not be changed without consensus. Both are equally valid, and the version already in use on an article takes precedence unless there is broad consensus to change. Recent edits that changed the abbreviations in this article from CE to AD were therefore reverted. IF there is a wish to change, then it must be discussed and an agreement reached between interested editors before this can proceed. Triona (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Should remain CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Should revert to and standardize on BC/AD in English language versions. 173.71.10.232 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

BC/AD is valid only for Christian related articles, the rest is made per editor agreement, which in this case is CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bar Giora faction

It is true that Bar Giora is often considered a Zealot. However in fact, he was leading a faction of his own, completely unrelated to the Zealot factions of northern revolt. Bar Giora's faction is often named "peasantry faction", and its role during the revolt was complicated. Initially Bar-Giora fought together with the main Judean government (Matityahu and Ben-Gurion), but upon defeat of Syrian army, he was not given an official position. He then turned a renegade bandit, leading his comrades to pillage the country-side in Hebron area. In the year 68, however, with the civil war in Jerusalem turning in favor of the Zealots, Bar-Giora was called by surviving elements of the Judean government, and succeeded to take much of the city from the Zealots. From then on, he functioned as one of the leaders of the Judean government and presented a strong counter-force to John's and Eleazar's factions. Further, upon the fall of Jerusalem, unlike John, who was sold into slavery, Bar-Giora was executed as "Jewish leader", recognizing his official role in Judean rebel government.GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Undid two acts of vandilism

205.126.85.0 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)unsigned

Change in Outbreak of Rebellion

Hello editors of this wiki article, I will be making changes to the "outbreak of the rebellion," adding more descriptions of the events that took place and people named such as Eliezar ben Hanania. I will also be adding events and views that motivated the Jews to revolt against the Romans. I will be using the Article, "Roman Domination," by Shaye J.D. Cohen as a secondary source. Please feel free to comment on my changes on this talk page or on my talk page. KaiArwas (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the article is problematic

The article is problematic because it is laden with grammar mistakes, missing citations, incorrect and missing information. The secondary source from our course that I plan to use to solve some of the problems is Lawrence Schiffman’s From Text to Tradition, Ch 9: “Revolt and Restoration.” I plan on using the secondary source as a point of comparison to find inconsistencies, fallacies, and mistakes and correct the Wikipedia article to be more truthful, well-rounded, and detailed in its portrayal of the event. I will first correct the mechanical issues within the Wikipedia article. For example, the sentence: “Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, a sizeable portion of these were at Jewish hands and due to illnesses brought about by hunger” is a run-on sentence and should have a period between “siege” and “a sizeable portion” or a conjunction to connect those phrases. This wikipedia article also fails to discuss the specs of how Jews adapted to Roman influence, so I plan to add more background on Jewish life under Roman rule. Jimmy19951 (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Jimmy19951

Jimmy19951 - what do you mean "from our course"? Wiki users don't know that. Why is this comment under the title "AD vs CE edits"? Why not add a new section to Talk Page? "fallacies, mistakes" - vague. What background do you have in mind? More concrete plans would be helpful. Chapmansh (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Menorah and the Table of the Bread

"the Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence, which had previously only ever been seen by the High Priest of the Temple"

This is an error. The Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence were also seen by the other priests, not only the High Priest.

--ThePro (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IV/ IIII

The Legio IIII Scythica is a common way of Writing the number of this legion in academic sources, and in the epigraphic records we have seems to be how the legion numbered itself. IV maybe the more common version of the number in general use, but in this context it is not necessary to change.Pipsally (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Roman campaign ended with their success at the siege of Masada in 736–776.

Is 736 - 776 a different calendar or just the wrong date for the siege?

131.152.225.37 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

broken footnote

Hello Template:U!

In Template:Diff, you added a footnote that depends on a citation for "Horbury 2016". However, there's no such citation in this article and now the article has a referencing error. Are you able to provide the missing citation and clean up the error? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Mikeblas! Looks like I got the year wrong. Just fixed it to 2014. Thanks for catching that! 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the fix! -- mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent edit comments re Masada and the First Jewish Roman War

Hi Template:Ping regarding your edit comments:

• rev - Masada's fall did not happen "around the war's conclusion." in many works, the narration of the revolt ends with the fall of Masada, which is why 73/74 CE is typically given as the end date. Masada was the last rebel stronghold to be subdued, and its fall marks the end of resistance
• rev - sorry, but I'm not seeing how removing the site being the revolt's last stronghold, along with the chronological placement after the fall of Jerusalem, is an improvement. That context is important, both factually and narratively. please check my comments elsewhere. Thanks!
• rev - just to clarify: yes, the Sicarii are sometimes described as part of the broader Zealot movement. Of course, they weren't *The* Zealots (that would be Eleazar's faction), but they definitely fall within that field of groups often called that way, since they were inspired by the ideas of the Fourth Philosophy. If you're curious, Hengel goes into all of this in detail: The Zealots: Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod until 70 AD (1989). Worth a read!
• rev, unfortunately not really an improvement! There's no need to separate Masada from the other strongholds, sources actually describe the capture of Masada as part of the broader Roman mop-up campaign (with Herodium and Machaerus). Masada was absolutely a rebel stronghold, in the sense that its inhabitants continued to resist Roman rule even after the rest of the province had been pacified. Throwing in another mention of the Sicarii to remind readers that this was the faction

The drafting should not be promoting Masada myth narratives (Sicarii=Zealots, Sicarii=Rebels in the War). The myth narrative had permeated a lot of popular works on this topic, and has been deconstructed by the last 30 years of scholarship.

On Sicarii=Zealots, Hengel’s work was published prior to the bulk of this scholarship – on the treatment of Sicarii / Zealots it does not represent the current consensus (frankly, as Hengel explains on page xvii, his treatment was down to his “belief” in the absence of any available evidence to disprove Josephus).

On Sicarii=Rebels in the War, the same is true. Current consensus is now clear that the Sicarii were not participants in the wider war. This can be confirmed by reading Josephus’s narrative. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile The Sicarii they were absolutely rebels and very much part of the war. In 66 CE, their leader Menahem ben Judah (a descendant of the founder of the Fourth Philosophy, who had led an uprising against Rome in 6 CE) was one of the major rebel figures in Jerusalem. He brought weapons to support the revolt, taken from Masada after leading the assault that killed the Roman garrison stationed there. Under his leadership the Sicarii actively Roman forces inside Jerusalem, took part in the capture of Herod's Palace, and helped destroy the Roman garrison there. They only left Jerusalem after Menahem was assassinated, following what appears to have been a display of messianic pretensions, possibly signaling a claim to kingship over the now independent city. At Masada, they then had their own isolated, mini-state for several years. The biggest wave of arrivals there, btw, seems to have come during years 2 through 4 of the revolt, in 67–69 CE (see Rogers, 2022, p. 407). These new joiners weren't all Sicarii, many were just refugees from other parts of Judaea. It also seems that some Essenes from Qumran joined them in 68 CE (see Rogers, 2022, p. 408; Magness, 2019, pp. 3–4).

The Romans didn't consider the war in Judaea finally over until the last pockets of resistance, including Masada, were taken. In what I have seen, scholars consistently describe the siege of Masada as part of the Roman campaign to end the revolt, so saying it happened "around the war's conclusion" is definitely not aligned with the sources. About Hengel, yes, his work is a bit older, but I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. His research on Zealotry in ancient Judaism continues to be cited today, and he's widely respected to this very day.

Just a few examples:

• Millar (1995): Template:Tq (p. 77)
• Magness (2012): Template:Tq (p. 215)
• Magness (2019): Template:Tq (p. 1); and Template:Tq (p. 67)
• Rogers (2022): Template:Tq and then he describes how some Sicarii escaped to Libya and stirred anti-Roman sentiment until they were executed for refusing to accept Caesar as lord (p. 428). For him, the Sicarii's activities in North Africa and the closure of the Temple of Onias in Egypt represent the final stages of the revolt.
• Davies (2023): Template:Tq and includes it in his overview of Rome's mop-up operations. (p. 100)

So honestly, the idea that the Sicarii weren't part of the war, or that the siege of Masada wasn't part of the revolt's final stage(s), just doesn't seem to hold up in recent history/archaeology/classics scholarship. If there's a newer, mainstream interpretation that truly challenges the consensus, I'd like to see it. But as it stands, this is what the best reliable sources support! Mariamnei (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Zealots

A series of quotes below that explain the need to tidy up our descriptions of Sicarii as Zealots:

• Magness, 2019, Chapter 7 footnote 5: Template:Tq… Chapter 8: Template:Tq
• Horsley, 1979, p.435-436 Template:Tq
• Brighton, 2009, page xiii: Template:Tq

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sicarii as participants in the war

The answer here is a nuance somewhere in between the way we have both described it. I will pull some quotes to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)