Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:24:43.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Debate on the Loyal Sacrifices, A.D. 66

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Cecil Roth
Cecil Roth
Affiliation:
Oxford, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A turning-point in the history of Judaea in the first century was the rejection, some time in the summer of 66, of the daily sacrifice that had been offered for many years past in honor of the Emperor; this was tantamount to the repudiation of allegiance to Rome, and thus marked the beginning of the Great Revolt. The Talmud (T. B. Giṭṭin 56a) has a legendary account of this episode, which it associates with a quarrel between two citizens of Jerusalem bearing the improbable names of Kamṣa and Bar Kamṣa, the latter ultimately figuring in the rôle of agent provocateur and informer. Possibly, the name conceals in garbled form some personality of the period known to us from other sources, but thus far it has been impossible to identify him.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 1960 , pp. 93 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Identity has been suggested with the pro-Roman citizens of Tiberias, Compsus and his son of the same name, presumably known as Compsus bar Compsus (Josephus, Vita, §33), but it is far from convincing; neither the geographical setting nor the circumstances correspond.

2 I am endeavoring to deal with this, the constitutional aspect of the Revolution of 66, in a separate paper.

3 We will revert to this later: meanwhile, it may be noted that of the two priests who were on the Commission of Enquiry sent to Galilee in 68 to investigate the charges against Josephus, one was a Pharisee (Vita, §197).

4 “To the body” is added, a little perplexingly, in the Hebrew, almost suggesting that he considered this course to be dictated by physical prudence.

5 It is conceivable that the Pharisaic Gezeroth banning certain Gentile products &c., apparently aimed at cutting off relations between Jews and non-Jews and believed to have been promulgated at this period, are evidence of an attempt by the Pharisee scholars to regain the influence among the patriotic elements which had been lost by their failure to give a definite lead at the outbreak of the Revolution.

6 This can hardly imply the Roman conquest (or reconquest) by force of arms, but might conceivably be a reference to the events of 68/9, when this area defected from the Zealots and docilely submitted to the personal rule of Simon bar Giora. However that may be, the two statements ascribed to R. Hananiah stand in obvious contradiction one to the other. Unless the ascription is incorrect, we must assume a change of attitude on his part: opposing the Revolution at the outset, he may have accepted it later de facto, as has often been the case at other times in similar circumstances.

7 The Talmud states that R. Zachariah was responsible for saving the traitor from the punishment which he deserved: this is indeed at variance with the accepted picture of Zealot ruthlessness.