The story about John begins here in Gush Halav. We are in the ancient synagogue near Gush Halav brook, in the north of the Upper Galilee, now in the territory of the village of Jish. The uncovering of this synagogue, together with the remains of a synagogue at the top of the town, all these finds are later than the 1st century, and therefore we cannot learn from them about the settlement here during the days of the great revolt that took place between the years 66-70. We do know that the place was inhabited at least since the Assyrian rule here since the 8th century BC to this day. The fact that most of the archeological finds are later than the 1st century is not unique to Gush Halav. This is a known phenomenon from quite a few sites in the Galilee and other locations across the Land of Israel for the reason that the settlement was continuous in most of these sites, and as a result, a new period often erased the remains of a previous period as people built their houses in place of ruins from a previous period. Artifacts from earlier periods were found in settlements that were destroyed and their settlement ceased, an excellent example is Gamla which was destroyed in the Great Revolt and was never restored.
In the 2nd century BC, the book of Maccabees tells us about Jews in Galilee during the Hasmonean revolt. It is told that the Hasmonean in Judah came to the aid of their Jewish brothers in Galilee and along the eastern part of the Jordan river, rescued them from their enemies and brought them to Judah to a safe place (Maccabees 1:14-23). From that, it can be concluded that there were Jews in Galilee in the 2nd century BC before the Hasmonean conquests, although we do not know much about them since the time of the conquest of the Kingdom of Israel by Tiglath-Pileser III in 733 BC. So, we should not be surprised that the inhabitants of the Galilee demonstrated loyalty to the Hasmoneans in their struggles against the Romans and their supporters. Moreover, it seems that the conquest of the Galilee by the Hasmoneans led to a change in land ownership as the Hasmoneans abolished some of the royal estates and divided their land among the new settlers and perhaps also among the local farmers. These changes improved the status of the farmers in the Galilee – both Jews and Judaizers. Yet the more their situation improved, the more they were afraid of losing this achievement and feared that the neighboring Hellenistic cities would try to take back control of the Galilee lands. This led to the situation that when the Roman legions led by Vespasian and his son Titus arrived to Galilee at the beginning of their journey to suppress the great revolt, they did not encounter widespread resistance from the Jews of the region. Only in two towns did the Romans encounter real resistance: Yodfat and Gamla. Across the rest of the Galilee settlements, residents did not show real resistance – not even in Gush Halav, so it is likely that John from Gush Halav, who managed the situation when the Romans were knocking on the door of his town’s wall – did not have the DNA of a revolt leader. We will soon see John’s gradual transformation from mild public figure to a revolt leader.
It is possible to learn about the relatively established status and moderation of the residents, also from their immediate willingness to surrender to Titus after John left Gush Halav. Yosef ben Matityahu also known as Josephus Flavius wrote about the city’s residents as follows: “Its residents were indeed peace-loving, because they were mostly farmers and their eyes were always set on the hope of a harvest”.
The first mention of John is in the writings of Josephus Flavius from the 1st century, and I quote: “John ben Levi, when he saw that some citizens from Gush Halav were thinking of rebelling against the Romans, he tried to pacify them, but when the foreigners attacked the city, captured it, set it on fire and destroyed it, he became a different person. He gathered an army, armed it, attacked these foreigners, beat them and rebuilt Gush Halav, and surrounded it with a wall better than it was at the beginning”.
The great Jewish revolt against Roman rule in the Land of Israel in the years 66-70 or until 73 when taking into account the extra 3 years it took the Romans to conquer Masada, is probably the most significant event in the history of Israel under the rule of Rome. What characterized the revolt, is the great variety of movements and personalities that participated in it as they were fighting among themselves for their place both among the people and within the revolt movement itself.
Historian Uriel Rappaport wrote: “It was an uprising of people whose lives are a complicated variety of views and traditions in matters of religion and faith.” Not everyone wanted the revolt, and even those who did, split into factions. The revolt itself was not a strong enough factor to unite all the groups, each of which had its own motives and goals and whose leaders fought each other. John of Gush Halav is one of the main figures who acted in the revolt.
I’ll take a step back: John fortified Gush Halav to protect the settlement from the Hellenistic cities and not as part of the plan to revolt against Rome. His actions till that time were not against the moderate pro-Roman camp. But when he found himself in a leadership position, his views and temperament led him to the anti-Roman camp, and in Jerusalem he became one of the leaders of the revolt, second only to Shimon Bar Giora.
It is possible that John understood the connection between the apparent local problem of relations between Jews and foreigners in the Land of Israel and the Roman rule, and realized that this situation will impact the existence of the people of Israel. This led to his decision to join the revolt. This also included the belief that God would not give Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. It is impossible to know if John believed in this as he publicly declared, or used this as a means of strengthening the faith in the revolt camp. The process that John went through is not only his personal, as it seems to have been a general national one. This is a transition of various groups among the Jews of the Land of Israel, from a relatively moderate position to a more extreme position to the point of joining the revolt.
After he arrived to Jerusalem, and in light of his previous connections with Shimon ben Gamaliel and his cooperation with Hanan ben Hanan – a former high priest and the dominant figure in the moderate government, he joined forces with the Jerusalem government. However, it quickly became clear to him that there is really no unanimity between him and the heads of government in Jerusalem. John came to the conclusion that the Romans must be expelled, so he shifted his support from the moderates to the zealots.
Just as Shimon Bar Giora and the Sicarii, who were a group of extremists cooperated, so was the case between John of Gush Halav and the zealots: they cooperated in the struggles that took place in Jerusalem, which led to the end of the moderate government. Regarding this matter and without going into the reason for the hypothesis and the source of the information, it seems that John had reservations about the elimination of the moderates and those suspected of supporting them by the zealots when the government in Jerusalem passed into their hands. John did not participate in the killing of those with whom he had previously collaborated. It is clear that the relationship between John and the Zealots was as strong and existing as that between Shimon Bar Giora and the Sicarii.
Even if the paths of John and the zealots diverged at certain stages of the revolt, according to Josephus Flavius, they both returned and united later, and during the siege of Jerusalem the zealots fought under the supreme command of John.
The stubborn and tough core of the Sicarii freedom fighters achieved their goal, the Jews of the Land of Israel all found themselves in the vortex of the war with the Romans.
However, during the events that preceded it, the Sicarii lost their status as the leaders of the revolt in favor of other movements. First the Zealots took their place, and then the factions of John and Shimon bar Giora. The source of strength of Shimon’s faction was in the poor strata of the people, while the support for John from Gush Halav came from a higher social economic status. With the fall of the moderates in Jerusalem, John of Gush Halav was the most important leader in the city.
He reached this status, which lasted a little just over a year (from the beginning of 68 to 69), mainly due to the extent of the military force that was under his direct command and the prestige he enjoyed at that time. But it was a rule without stable foundations, it was based on John’s personal influence, on the trust placed in him by his comrades-in-arms, on the willingness of certain groups to cooperate with him, and such reasons do not tend to last long in an explosive environment.
His men were not obliged to obey him by law or by virtue of any decision, except by their own will. So, it’s no wonder that divisions occurred in John’s camp. This weakness is particularly reflected in comparison to the rise of Shimon Bar Giora to the status of the firstborn in the city. Some believe that Shimon was invited to Jerusalem and came to it as a legal leader – although a people’s assembly was not convened to appoint him,
the remnants of the moderates supposedly transferred to him the legitimacy that was the property of Hanan ben Hanan’s government. I will just add that I am not aware of any proof of such rulings power transfer. Also, the fact that Shimon was considered the senior leader of the revolt and he was the one who was led by the Romans in their victory lap, and was executed, does not necessarily stem from the legality of his position, and perhaps it is due to the fact that the number of warriors under his command was almost double to those under John’s command. And yet, even if Shimon did not have the status of a legal ruler, he probably enjoyed a certain messianic aura that strengthened his status, at least, among his camp. John and his men did not recognize the status of Shimon bar Giora, and even if their power was not enough to prevent Shimon’s entry into the city and his taking over its main parts, it was enough to leave in their hands control over other parts of the city, the Temple Mount and part of the lower city. The area under the control of John and his men had many military advantages, and Shimon could not overcome the strength of the fortifications in the area under their control. Under this situation, the maneuverability of the two opposing factions was very limited, what is more, the areas outside the control of the Roman army were getting smaller and smaller.
The besieged were hoping for salvation from the hands of heaven and immersed in quarrels among themselves. Josephus Flaviustalks about these quarrels at great length in his book Wars of the Jews. While the Roman army is encircling the city, they fight fiercely against each other, and destroy with their own hands the source of Jerusalem’s strength – the food warehouses stored in the city.
The reasons for this civil war cannot be understood. Her motives according to the words of the main source we have: pursuit of power, brotherly hatred, personal rivalry and complete madness. Only when the Romans began to fight did the opponents agree to cooperate with each other, until the temple burned down and the upper city fell. It was too late; John and Shimon were captured by the Romans.
Two years passed from the moment John of Gush Halav showed up as the head of the zealots until the fall of the city. Being a realistic man, his tragedy was particularly difficult. Even if he believed in heavenly salvation, it is hard to believe that he did not understand that the course of events will lead to the failure of the revolt and to a great disaster for the Jewish people. John’s end is unknown to us. Josephus writes that he was captured, sentenced to life imprisonment and taken to Rome to be presented in the triumphal campaign held there. Very sad ending.
And to conclude, as usual I have a question for you: in which revolt were the Romans required to use larger military force, the Great Revolt or the Bar Kochba Revolt? The answer will appear at the end of the video.
