jews in a graeco- roman world 107
of the caution of the elderly general Vespasian entrusted with the recap-
ture of Jerusalem and in part because the Roman world was distracted,
from late 68 ce, by the death of the emperor Nero and bids for the
imperial power by a series of four senators, of whom the last (and most
successful) was Vespasian himself. When Vespasian’s son Titus,
appointed by his father in 69 ce to complete the Judaean campaign,
finally invested Jerusalem in spring 70 ce, he did so as heir apparent to
the imperial power. The ferocity of the direct assault on the walls of the
city over the ensuing months, with its willingness to countenance
Roman casualties in the service of a speedy victory, was fired by the
need to present the new imperial regime to the Roman public as heroic
conquerors of a barbarian foe.
Josephus claimed, probably correctly, that Titus would have pre-
ferred not to destroy the Temple, but once the building had been set
alight in the dry August heat of Jerusalem, it was impossible to save.
The public sacrifices on behalf of the emperor, to ensure which Rome
had gone to war in 66 ce, were now impossible, but Vespasian and
Titus took the politic decision that it would reflect better on the new
dynasty to revel in the destruction rather than mourn it and admit that
it had been an error. The accoutrements of the Temple, as carried
through the streets of Rome in triumph in 71 ce, can still be seen
depicted on the Arch of Titus near the Roman Forum.^30
It will be clear that the history of the Temple and its leadership was
intimately bound up with the politics of Rome in the six decades before
the Temple was reduced to rubble. Roman governors treated the High
Priest as the representative of the Jews of Judaea and trusted him to
keep order. For important decisions, such as a trial on a capital charge,
the High Priest was expected to consult a synhedrion, ‘council’. The
Greek term was used by Josephus also to refer to the ad hoc consilium
of advisers customarily convened by Roman magistrates, and was trans-
literated into Hebrew in the Mishnah as Sanhedrin, to refer to a supreme
court of seventy- one judges competent to try the most difficult cases. If
the High Priest’s Sanhedrin operated like a Roman magistrate’s council,
its composition will have varied to suit the topic under discussion. Thus
Jews of very different religious complexions could sit on a Sanhedrin at
the same time – Pharisees and Sadducees on the Sanhedrin are said by
the author of Acts to have fallen out with each other during the trial of
St Paul.^31
Until the revolt broke out in 66 ce this system of government worked
well. There were disturbances, of course, over the course of sixty years,