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.