The destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, commemorated annually on Tisha B'Av, remains one of the most traumatic events in Jewish history. The traditional mourning period known as the Three Weeks culminates in this national catastrophe, described in detail by the Jewish historian Yosef ben Matityahu, later known as Flavius Josephus.
According to Josephus, the fall of Jerusalem was hastened not only by the overwhelming Roman military force but also by bitter internal strife among Jewish factions. Rival ideological groups clashed violently, with some reportedly destroying food supplies inside the besieged city, thereby accelerating its downfall to Roman generals Vespasian and his son Titus. This narrative became the dominant version of the Great Revolt.
But was Josephus' account truly accurate? Dr. Hanan Birnbaum, a historian specializing in Second Temple Jerusalem, urges caution. "Josephus' account is biased," he says. "He had a clear, dual agenda: to portray Rome as a peace-seeking empire and to depict the Jewish people, aside from a small radical faction, as peace-loving."
Josephus, who defected to the Romans, had strong incentives to justify his own betrayal. Painting the rebels in a negative light both rationalized his actions and flattered his Roman patrons. "He amplifies the power of the Zealots to vilify them," Dr. Birnbaum explains, "and to divert blame from the Romans and from the broader Jewish public."
So what really happened during the siege? "It's hard to know precisely," Dr. Birnbaum concedes. "Josephus' version is likely exaggerated. It's plausible that there was more cooperation among the factions than he lets on. While differences existed and may have caused tensions, it's unlikely that the factions fought each other to the extent he claims."
Dr. Birnbaum also challenges another popular belief, that unity among the Jewish factions could have preserved Jerusalem's independence. "That's a myth," he says. "Rome never backed down. Even with abundant food and full cooperation inside the city, the siege would have continued until Jerusalem fell. It might have taken months or even a year, but the result would have been the same: total destruction."
Another contested claim is Josephus' assertion that Titus opposed setting the Temple ablaze. "That narrative is misleading," says Dr. Birnbaum. "The Roman historian Tacitus, though his full works haven't survived, is quoted by others as describing Titus actively supporting the Temple's destruction during a war council with Roman officers."
Josephus' own account is riddled with contradictions regarding the Temple fire. "Most likely, Titus ordered the burning," Birnbaum says. "Josephus, wanting to present his benefactors in a better light, concealed this uncomfortable truth."
