The Great Rebellion: How Big and How Necessary?

Beyond the fact that, as a result, the Jewish framework in the Land of Israel almost collapsed, and therefore it should be treated with reverence, many of the best scholars of the period, who are my colleagues, made the mistake of attributing respect and reverence to the events of the rebellion, and inflated its dimensions beyond all proportion.

The events of the Great Revolt in the Romans, from 66 to 73 CE, occupy a permanent and extremely important place on the shelf of the history books of the people of Israel, not to mention their centrality in the field of the subject of history in the education system. In the writer's humble opinion, beyond defining the events as rebellious megalomania - "the great rebellion"; Beyond becoming a pillar he supported the Jewish-national consciousness, that is, Zionism, of the late 19th century; In addition to being a kind of mirror, a historical aspacleria like a goshpanka, not only today (since the beginning of Zionism and especially during the 1948 war), but also in the past we knew how to "go for blows", we did not put up with those who rose up against us to our brides, and we were always such "savants"; Beyond the fact that, as a result, the Jewish framework in the Land of Israel almost collapsed, and therefore it should be treated with reverence, many of the best scholars of the period, who are my colleagues, made the mistake of attributing respect and reverence to the events of the rebellion, and inflated its dimensions beyond all proportion.

If I briefly summarize the research summaries of those researchers, I will present below the motives of the rebellion as follows: basic opposition to the occupation itself, a struggle against the policy of taxation and usurpation, struggles between Jews and urban-Orientals in the cities of the polis, reservations against the tyranny and oppressive rule of the Roman commissioners, a reaction in the face of vulnerability of Romans in the sanctuaries of the Jewish religion and worship, messianic agitations and fanatics who saw before their eyes the near redemption and the end of the kingdom of evil, is Rome.

My opinion differs from this accepted and conservative grouping, and I depart from some basic points in order to propose a different theory. The researchers are captive, in the cave, within the folds of modern conceptions. That is, peoples who revolted against enslaving kingdoms succeeded in the modern era in realizing their claims, say the French Revolution and the American Revolution, because behind them stood organization, preparatory works, an army, state-national motivation, and above all - the support of an entire people, or at least significant parts of it.

Moreover, the researchers seek to examine aspects that are too complex, to nurse and connect them and plant this connection into the body and soul of the ancient population. The complex vision of the researchers, from a distance of hundreds and thousands of years and from the height of the satellite, cannot characterize the ancient potential rebel.

The situation in the ancient period was completely different: first - nations were not characterized by a sense of state-national freedom, because such teachings were generally the property of the modern world; Second - the formation and consolidation of the parts of the people were completely loose; Thirdly - as long as the representatives of the government did not harm the pockets of the governed on the one hand and the worship of the governed on the other, there was no chance to go out and rebel; Fourth - the technical communication between parts of the population was completely lax.

It therefore follows that the rebellion had to be organized, if at all, only in Jerusalem and conducted mainly in it and its immediate surroundings.
With your permission, we will examine the things as they are:

We can find their existence in the sources. Since the archaeological findings, which are not poor in relation to the rebellion, do not adequately contribute to the solution of the above "mystery", and since the Sage literature (Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmuds and Midrasims), when considering the "official" documentation of the Jewish leadership, it also fills its mouth with water in general As for the rebellion, we have no choice but to turn to the historian of the time, aka Joseph ben Mattathieu.
So what does this historian bring to us? Well, according to him, the responsibility for the outbreak of the rebellion falls on the shoulders of the official representatives of Rome in the sub-province of Judea (as subordinate to the Syrian province), they are the commissioners/supervisors and other administrative, police and military functionaries who operated in the area until the outbreak of the rebellion. These, as we know, operated at a time when Rome itself was thrown into a whirlwind of irresponsible emperors and even into a "Gog and Magog" war between four who claimed the imperial crown and swept the entire Roman Empire into a frenzied and fragile atmosphere.

If we open historical brackets to clarify the picture, we will note that one of the main elements that brought the Roman Empire to what it was and for a long period of time, was political intelligence, almost unprecedented in the history of the ancient world. Beyond the organizational, administrative, military-policing and deterrence aspects, Rome built its empire on a very simple basis: the territory is vast and large and consists of a multitude of peoples, and therefore the rebellious stimulus in the territories of the Roman government (one that could become a domino stone) must be reduced as much as possible the first to fall and overthrow her "sisters"), and this by decent administration of a government that is not oppressive and not cruel, that does not provoke the feelings of the locals and often considers their claims (and again, as mentioned, because of tactical and pragmatic reasons).

"Fate" had its way and in the first century AD Judah was placed under the arbitrary and cruel control of Roman commissioners/overseers, those who took advantage of the "mess" in Rome and defined their term of office in the land as "squeezed as you can", or "as low as you can". The local public did not have an address to direct their petitions to and therefore embarked on a kind of crash course called revolt, resistance with the back against the wall.
But someone had to pick up the gauntlet, and these were jealous, delusional types, some messiahs, greedy for rule and power and bloodthirsty and action. These calculated how to channel the public's economic and social hardships into a collision course with the Roman government, and in the process upgrade their personal status and rule over the public.

It was the combination of these two factors: the roll-out and rebellion of the Roman overseers on the one hand and the rebellious fanatical activity on the other, that grew the infrastructure for the outbreak of the rebellion among the Romans, Eliba Diosef ben-Mathetyahu. All other accompanying reasons are marginal and sometimes slide out of any logical historical context, such as the national reasons (the desire of every people to be free in their country), which by definition can only be located in the 18th century, the age of the growth of national movements. It is difficult for most researchers and those interested, and one can understand why, to break free from modern conceptions when they come to investigate ancient, "dinosaur" ages. The ancient peoples, "what-to-do", did not develop national theories of ethnic, geo-political consolidation and dreamed of a liberation movement. Being under foreign rule, as long as, of course, the government did not abuse them and roll over them, mainly religious-ritual and economic, really did not bother them, the locals, and in many cases even strengthened them. The attempt, therefore, to attach national factors to Judah who rebelled, is inappropriate and improper.

The attempts to rebel against the Romans already began from the beginning of the Roman rule in Judea (63 BC onwards), and they were led by two factors: one, a Hasmonean scion such as Alexander and his father Aristobulus, Matthias Antigonus, or those identified with them, such as Pitoleus, as those who fought (and perhaps rightly in their view) against Who (the Roman) was actually responsible for the loss of its status and prestige (until the Roman conquest, Judah was ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty. These attempts were clumsy and fruitless and did not produce any change in the occupied status of Judah, and sometimes exactly the opposite. On the one hand, the extent of the rebels' desperation and on the other hand, Nicholas of Damascus tells , because in the heart of the Hasmonean leader Alexander the decision to kill every Roman that happened to be in his path was rewarded

These moves were joined by fanatical, delusional and violent elements, such as Hezekiah the Galilean who acted during Herod's term as governor of the Galilee, and his son, Yehuda the Galilean, "who gathered a crowd of courageous men near the birds of Galilee and attacked (there) the king's house, and after taking control of the cock vessels that were placed There he raped the people who were with him and took the money he found there. He was terrible to all mankind and robbed those who came across him, out of aspiration for greater things and out of eagerness for the honor of kings, and he hoped to win this gift of honor not because of the good deeds he used to do but because of the size of his insolence."

All kinds of types, some eccentric and some eye-catching, joined this antralmosic atmosphere, who called on the people to rebel. Among these is mentioned Simeon, Herod's servant, who wore a royal crown on his head, burned Herod's palace in Jericho, not before they robbed and looted, and sent fire to the many king's houses in the land. There was also a shepherd named Athrongs, he also aspired to kingship and was haunted by lust and a desire to rule. He and his four brothers set out to eliminate Romans wherever they met them. His area of ​​operation was in the Elon Valley. There was also one named Alexander, who claimed to be Herod's son, who inspired many good people after him and aspired to the kingship.

In 6 CE, Judah's legal status changes by order of the Romans: it becomes a Roman province. Although her position was junior - third in the provincial category, it was enough during a technical and official Roman course, without practical significance (and apparently for the benefit of the locals, including the Jews) such as managing a census (and even for the purpose of land assessment), to arouse the fanatical opposition. It was headed by Yehuda the Galili (or "the man of the Golan"). Hela argued, and together with him a Pharisee leader named Zadok, that the commander symbolizes slavery and the end of freedom (as if before that the people were free and sovereign over their lives). This greedy duo founded a fanatical and radical messianic infrastructure called "the fourth philosophy - school", as the ideological basis for all anti-Roman extremism. And so, imbued with the central idea that only God is given control over the land and the people, that fanatical group formulated the ideology of the revolt against the Romans, in a to-be-or-to-be-not manner. They attributed to Rome the dubious title of "kingdom of conviction", and from this the delegitimization of the Roman rule is created, and its result - an activist initiative of rebellion. The followers of the sect worshiped the two first fanatics-delusions in the Bible: Phinehas and Elijah, and in their name they sought to carry out any counter-action against the Romans.

One of the interesting phenomena that became known in those years, far from activist messianism, but pointing to it from a different direction, is the beginning of Christianity, from the madrasah of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (who can certainly be defined as Jews in every way). The Jesuit approach was pacifist, compliant with Roman rule and very pragmatic, and despite all this the two were accused of treason and rebellion. The sentence of Jesus that was pronounced by the Roman commissioner Pontius Pilate, arose as a result of the Romans' fear of rebellious outbreaks, which they knew from time to time, and indicates the tense atmosphere that prevailed at that time among the Romans towards any one or another ideological principle.

The Romans realize that they have overcrowded the Saa, and therefore make sure to depose Pontius Pilate, the commissioner who crosses Jesus, and even the commissioner of Syria bothers to come twice to Jerusalem as a gesture of a more conciliatory policy.

The Roman emperor Caius Caligula (40 BC) ordered the placement of his statue in the temple in Jerusalem as an unprecedented move in the history of Rome and what indicated a dangerous personal sickness, and just like Antiochus Epiphanes in his time (167 BC) he sought to make the Jerusalem temple the focus of his personal worship. The decree did not go into effect and Claudius, Caligula's successor, returned to Rome's old policy of tolerance and reconciliation towards the provincials.

In the last period of the Roman Commission, from 44 CE to 66 CE, the indignation of the Roman officials against the Jews increased on the one hand and on the other hand the phenomenon of the "listos" - the emergence of groups breaking the law and order. Let us examine the extent of the Romans' abuse of the Jews, as many historians take pains to point out. Well, during the days of the Roman commissioner Phadus, who ruled between 44 and 46, a land conflict broke out between a Jewish village across the Jordan and the city of Polis Philadelphia. The commissioner ordered the death of one of the heads of the village and sentenced two others to banishment-exile. Let us examine the incident in detail as follows: "When Phados came as an epitropus (commissioner) to Judah, he found the Jews living in the West Bank engaged in a quarrel with the people of (the city of the polis) Philadelphia because of their interests One village called ... (so originally) and full of people. And the people of Transjordan (the Jews) took hold of a cock without the knowledge of the heads of their sect (their leaders) and killed many of the people of Philadelphia. When Phadus heard of this he was very angry because they did not leave the decision in his hands, if they thought that they had been wronged by the people of Philadelphia but went (after) arms. He therefore seized the first three men (above) among the Jews, who were guilty of the riot, and ordered them to be imprisoned. After killing one of them, his name was Haniva, and on two of them, Amram and Eleazar, he imposed the penalty of exile."

This event, despite the fact that it took place more than 20 years before the outbreak of the revolt among the Romans, known as the "Great Revolt", presents, as a kind of world in a nutshell, the culprits of the outbreak of the revolt: Jewish quarrel-mongers and typical brawlers, whose "hand is light on the trigger", who rush To draw weapons, and gentlemen, the weapons were ready, as well as the organization against the city of Polis, and they were just waiting impatiently for the outbreak of violence, for some kind of provocation. In the process, we will learn that the leaders were opposed to any form of violence, and certainly armed, and even the Roman response: the dead and exile, did not provoke any protest or waves of opposition. This prototype of Jewish provocation, the use of armed violence against the Hellenistic urban population, would be repeated later, rolling out the course of the revolt.

Immediately afterwards, Josephus tells about the phenomenon of lists, which is a kind of combination between lawbreakers on a personal basis and bandits on an economic basis, when one of the gangs was commanded by one Ptolemy ("Ptolomeus") who was a member of the Edomites and Arabs. Phados successfully dealt with this dangerous phenomenon and forcibly uprooted it from Judea. So here you have another phenomenon of violence in Judea, when the opinion allows, part of which was on an ideological basis: anti-Roman, messianic and fanatical in general. The "guys" therefore, like the ancestors of the "youth of the hills", or the "Trask guys" of the days of the mandate in Israel, were looking for provocations to take part in the Roman rule, and some of them, of course, one with the crazy motto of "after the flood"!
Immediately afterwards, Josephus tells about an exercise of control by the Romans: the return of Roman control over the ritual uniforms of the high priest, and here are the differences between the reaction and the reaction: the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem seeks to return the situation to the way it was before by sending a lobbyist delegation to Rome, which has no weapons but Here is full of persuasive words. Emperor Claudius is convinced and returns the control of the high priest's clothes to the Jews.
Did we think that tropical eccentricity was gone? Absolutely not! "And when Phadus was the bishop of Judah, one Bedouin man, whose name was Theodas, enticed a very large crowd to take their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River, for he said that he was a prophet, and added that according to his commandment he would split the river and give them an easy passage through it." The Romans fought uncompromisingly against a phenomenon of this kind for fear that it might ignite into rebellion (as indeed it would).
An eccentric, fanatical, messianic atmosphere began to flutter in the fabric of Jewish society, and later fueled the outbreak of the rebellion.

During the days of Phados's successor, Tiberius Julius Alexander, who served between 46 and 48 AD, a pair of zealots, Jacob and Shimon, the famous sons of Judah the Galilean, operated in the Galilee, and were executed by his order. It is worth noting that the tolerance of the Roman commissioner created, as it were, a violent, fanatical stimulation of gangs such as this Galilean one. As if seeking to create situations of provocation for rigid Roman reactions and for the flowering of the ideas of rebellion on the spot.
During the days of the governor Venatis Comanos (48-52 AD) a Roman soldier did a provocative act of exposing his behind in front of the Jewish public in Jerusalem on a holiday and a festival. This move prompted young Jews to stone the Roman soldiers and curse the commissioner.

Jewish mobsters robbed a cargo convoy of a senior Roman official, which was making its way to Jerusalem, and in response the Romans damaged nearby rural property and banned local Jewish leaders as a means of deterrence and persuasion. A Roman soldier from the punishment division, who on that occasion desecrated a Torah scroll, tore it up and set it on fire, was executed by order of the commissioner.

Galilean pilgrims were murdered by Samaritans and the commissioner did not bother to punish them (perhaps because he was bribed by the Samaritans). As a response, and what appears to be a planned and organized provocation, groups of the Galileans called out and encouraged Jews to take up arms and rebel. in whom? In the Samaritans? no and no! in the Romans. Jewish leaders asked to calm them down, while promising that they would try with the commissioner to severely punish the Samaritan murderers, but in vain. Not only that they did not lay down their weapons and did not stop the provocation, they teamed up with a known bandit and outlaw named Elazar ben Dini. Hela, at the head of his gangs, raided Samaritan villages in the Akrabata area, mercilessly massacred the inhabitants and set fire to much property. The Romans of course organized to punish the rioters, but the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem managed to convince the rebels to disperse and the affair ended, for the time being, without much bloodshed. It is interesting to note that what convinced the rebels was the claim of the Jerusalem leadership, that these, the rebels, could with their own hands bring about the destruction of Jerusalem (what would later be called by the Sages
"Hatred").
Yosef ben Mattiyahu says that "the Lysites returned to their fortified places", to teach us that they were preparing for a real rebellion, and in general, this is how Ben Mattyyahu ends the story - "from that time all of Judah was filled with Lystis". "Listists" as we know = fanatics = messianists = delusional rebellion.
In the days of Felix the Governor (52-60 CE) the phenomenon of listists increased, and together with it, in the "chick-couple" category, the phenomenon of the false messiahs, the Idauns and other Bedouins and deceivers arose again.
During the time of Felix, a new and dangerous phenomenon arises in the form of the "Sikriim" sect, whose name comes from the extensive use of the pigeon ("sika" in Greek) for the purpose of "persuasion" and assassinations. This fanatical-murderous group was the product of the twisted ideas of Judah the Galilean. These were the extremes of the extremes, a kind of followers of God "without God", who fought against everything that smelled Roman. The first to pay a price for this in his life was the High Priest Jonathan. The Sicarians stuck the "sign of Cain" on his forehead of collaboration with the Romans and murdered him, without any remorse. These zealots wore a robin-Indian costume, when they used to attack the property of the rich, rob it and distribute it among the poor and needy to increase their power.
The actions of the listists continued in the days of the next commissioner, Porcius Festus (60-62 AD), when they were reinforced by deceivers of various kinds, a kind of new prophets.
The last Roman commissioner was Gesius Florus (64-66 AD) and during his tenure, and at his initiative, there was indeed a strategy of provoking the Jews, especially in Jerusalem, and one can perhaps, on his face, understand the angry reactions of the Jews of Jerusalem in front of the commissioner and his military forces.
However, we will have a hard time understanding the burst of violence that swept towards the main Hellenistic cities. Jews attacked Hellenistic polis cities such as Kashon, Philadelphia, Gersh (Geresh), Scythopolis (Beit Shean), Pella, Gedera (Geder), Kadesh, Patolmais (Acre), Sebastia, Caesarea, Ashkelon, Gaza and Anthedon (Gaza Port). Attack them and their surrounding villages. This move cannot be explained except as deliberate and organized in advance, which only needed a provocative move, and this was found without difficulty, such as the conflict between the local residents of Caesarea - the Hellenists and the Jews, who belongs to the city and who has civil rights in it. By the way, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the provocation was embodied precisely in the commissioner's demand to use some of the temple's funds (17 plots).
In response, the people gathered in the temple and shouted bitterly and begged Florus in the name of the reigning emperor to return the usurpation. And against him, quarrelsome and rebellious people gathered, insulted and cursed the commissioner and even went around, provocatively, with charity boxes to raise a disgrace to the "Florus the Abion". The insulted Florus immediately demanded that his curses and slanderers be handed over, and a delegation from the high priests, the heads of the people and the officials in the city, asked to calm the commissioner down and even "forgive the iniquity of the people who did not keep their word, for it would not be surprising if we found a few bold-minded people in such a large crowd And young people are burned by reason, and God has no hand in distinguishing the sins, because each man is already comforted by his guilt and he denies what he has done, and if he (Florus) truly and sincerely demands to strengthen the peace among the people and save the city for the sake of the Romans, he must pay attention to the many who are free from guilt And because of them to pass on the iniquity of the few and not to upset the whole great nation that pursues peace by the fault of a few scoundrels" (Yosef ben Mattiyahu, Wars of the Jews, XNUMX:XNUMX).
Florus was not impressed by these words of conquest and he sent his soldiers in droves, who made names for him. This act and similar ones moved more and more supporters of the rebellion, although they were considered a minority. When the priests and Levites saw what was happening, they went out to the people and simply begged the hearts of the rebels to remove their hands from the desire for rebellion, and "how terrible was the sight of the high priests with dirt on their heads and tearing their clothes and exposing their closed hearts" as Yosef ben Matthew puts it (Wars of the Jews XNUMX:XNUMX ) with great emotion and brings the arguments of the priests towards the rebels along the lines of: Are you looking for your lost honor? Don't you understand that Florus is eager to react with fury to any provocation? Will you not pity your city? On your temple? and more.
The priests managed to calm the spirit of the Madon and Meri rioters, and they almost achieved their goal, but there were still provocateurs in the population and this led to the fact that the Romans continued to beat and harass the residents. The rebels rained sling stones on the Romans from the roofs and caused their retreat. This military-rebellious move actually symbolized the beginning of the rebellion among the Romans. A rebellion that ended with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple.
Florus realized that he had betrayed the Saa and was ready to compromise with the priests and the leadership of the city in general and reduce the Roman-military presence in the place and even replace the company of soldiers that confronted the Jews. A respected Roman representative visited Jerusalem and was convinced that the claims of the locals were directed towards the tenure of Commissioner Floros and not towards Rome in general. He also "went around the whole city, and came to know that the Jews really love peace, and after that he went up to the Temple Mount and there he gathered the people and praised him a lot for trusting his spirit to the Romans, and also appealed to him and urged him to keep the peace" (Wars of the Jews XNUMX:XNUMX ”g).
The people asked to send envoys to Emperor Nero to complain about Florus and his evil deeds, and at the same time Agrippa stood in a high place and was visible to the public in front of the Hasmonean palace, built above the Gazit Chamber, and did his best to convince the rebels to return from their anti-Roman, rebellious ways. His words were sensible and very convincing, such as the claim that the rebels might, completely against their will, bring about the destruction of the house.
His arguments caused public excitement and even the anger of the people subsided, and his answer, a little "childish" - detached, that he has no "problem" with the Romans, but only with Florus, presented great innocence, but nevertheless also an option to align the generations.
The people were right to listen to Agrippa's proposals to repair the destroyed buildings in Jerusalem and even pay the taxes to the Romans (which was supposed to be the lifting of the miracle of the rebellion), but they were determined not to put up with the continuation of Florus' term, and they demanded that a new commissioner come to Israel. The people may have been right, but this was because of an interference with the sovereignty of Rome and also a demand, which was clear from the beginning that a resident of Rome, as it happened.
The rebels continued to respond by throwing stones at the Romans and a fanatical, extremist group organized itself in Jerusalem and rushed towards Masada fortress. She quickly took control of it and slaughtered the soldiers of the Roman garrison on the spot.
At the same time, Eleazar ben Hananiah of the high priestly family initiated the official act of severing relations with Rome, which is the cessation of the offering of the sacrifice to the peace of the emperor in the temple (a custom that began back in the Persian period, continued in the Hellenistic era and under Roman rule. The custom has serious consequences in terms of the laws of idolatry and more in the depths of the Temple , but "when they need a thief, they take him down from the hanging rope"). "And although many of the great and important priests of the people spoke their hearts out, lest they break the law of offering sacrifices for the peace of the governors, the people did not listen to their voice, in their confidence in the size of the multitude, because the heroes of power from the crowd of the objects of the rebellion strengthened their hands, and their eyes were fixed on Eleazar who stands at their head" (Yosef Ben Matityahu, The Wars of the Jews, II XNUMX).
Here, indeed, the infrastructure of the rebellion is being formed, at its base, and in fact its main nucleus - fanatics, violent elements, messianists, and over all of them stands a ritualist, a member of the high priesthood family, with an extreme anti-Roman position. His friend therefore (and thus throughout history power with religion and their acceptance of obsessive, ultimate violence, which leads to chaos, destruction).
After the priests once again fail to convince the instigators of the rebellion with much logic, a delegation of leaders and dignitaries is organized to plead with Commissioner Florus and Agrippa to send troops to Jerusalem in order to subdue the rebels.
betrayal? treachery? Seemingly yes, but in fact no-no, and with your permission I will use a means that I do not usually use, namely a historiosophical projection: creating an analogy between two events, which are thousands of years apart and hundreds of kilometers apart, and I mean the ghetto uprising in the Holocaust. So they agreed and heard: beyond the historical fact (one that is manipulated to accept because of the political-state intention) that only in one ghetto (Warsaw) was there a rebellion and in the other ghettos the resistance was cut off while still in the enemy, or did not mature at all, because the ghetto's leadership, the Judenrat, opposed (and what- Rightly so) for such a stupid and dangerous move, which may, in the best case, sabotage the continued survival of the ghetto, if only for the simple reason that there is no chance of standing up to German power, and the price of "three lines in history" was too heavy.
A thin and fragile thread, but pointing to the one truth, connects the rebellion in the ghetto and the rebellion in Jerusalem against the Romans, and it is the sub-zero chance of standing up to the occupying army on the one hand, and paying a high and heavy price on the other hand (killed, wounded, exiles, property damage, and above all - destruction Jerusalem and the Temple).
Therefore, it would be absolutely infantile to try and diagnose the position of the Jerusalem leadership, one that disapproves of the outbreak of a rebellion, as a treacherous and cowardly move. The Jerusalem leadership was then ready to face any historical test while calling on the "bad guys" to return to Jerusalem and put order in it, lest it be too late.
The commissioner at this stage does not intervene, while Agrippa sends a massive military force of three thousand horsemen, which helps the leadership of the city of Jerusalem and all the peace seekers within it to take control of the upper city, when the rebels held the lower city and the Temple Mount. The fanatical rebels, driven by the Sikri gangs (the Pigeons, the Exterminators) went on a rampage and destroyed everything that came near. They set fire to the house of the high priest and other leaders. One of their destinations was the archive, where all the borrowers' promissory notes were kept. The archive was set on fire, and as a result the support of many poor people for the rebels increased, not for ideological reasons, but out of gratitude for the rebels who neglected their duties.
Jerusalem is thus dragged, almost against her will and reluctantly, into a revolt by the Romans. The rebels put the city on an irreversible axis of conflict with the Romans, and the troubles just began to hit the city until its complete destruction.

Judge for yourselves: was the rebellion worthwhile and does it deserve to be called "the great"?