A few thoughts (and I’d love a copy of your paper when you get round to it).

The revolt actually ended in 73/74 CE with the Romans quashing the southern districts (Machaerus, Masada etc) but effective military resistance ended after Jerusalem fell in 70 CE.

As to Josephus’ views – well the “War” is best dated to the mid-70′s CE. I don’t think one can disregard the facts that Josephus was a leading participant of the conflict itself writing about the events shortly after it and is the primary ancient source regarding the conflict without some very significant evidence to back up an alternative narrative.

1. Agree – that is why I noted that the leading Pharisees were opposed to the war. There was obviously a broad variety of views present in the group.
2. Most likely correct.
3. I would like to see your evidence which suggests that the Pharisees, as a movement, held a nationalist ideology, and that this ideology was not held by other movements eg. Essenes, Sadducees and that the Pharisaic beliefs necessarily influenced the Zealot movement.
4. I’m uncertain where you have derived this reference (the Mishnah?). Can you supply it? I would also like to see how you draw the conclusion that the Pharisees enshrined the Zealots excesses in law?
5. Can you point out your evidence which supports this conclusion?
6. Is certainly radical and as you can guess, I wouldn’t agree with this. However have you taken into account the influence of poor Roman administration of Judaea on its citizenry? The procurators etc (eg. Pilate for instance) were particularly unpleasant and this must have influenced the revolt, true? Or the role of the other groups (Essenes, Christians, Sadducees etc)? And I’m not certain how you disregard the historical narrative (eg. Josephus) which suggests that Zealot excess in Jerusalem was destructive to the war effort and certainly doesn’t support an idea of inevitability of conflict?

Apologies for not responding to comments, life has been a little hectic lately.

I do want to write one partial response to The Sadducee concerning the involvement of the Pharisees in the Great Revolt.

Sadducee, you have caused me to think hard about this issue and in conclusion it will require a very lengthy response that should really constitute a paper of some kind, as it is a fairly substantial rethinking of the prevailing notions around the Great Revolt.

For those who don’t know, the Great Revolt refers to the war between the Judaeans and the Roman Empire from 66CE (For your sake Andras) until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70CE. The prevailing view, as presented by Josephus is that responsibility for the war rests entirely with the Zealot party and he essentially absolves the Pharisees of responsibility.

As I said, a comprehensive response will require a full paper, but I will summarise here the essence of my argument.

1. I will be arguing that Phariseeism was not a monolithic and homogenous world view but one comprising many disparate and often antagonistic views. While there were certainly those who were opposed to conflict with Rome, the most famous being Yochanan ben Zakkai, there were many others that embraced and supported the idea.

2. The Zealots were essentially radicalised Pharisees.

3. The nationalistic ideology of Phariseeism provided the intellectual underpinnings for the Zealot movement. I would go so far as to argue that within the Pharisee cosmology and their understanding of the role of the Jewish nation within history, conflict with a ruling imperialist power would become an inevitability.

4. The Pharisees enshrined positive attitudes towards the Zealot party into law. Especially within the context of “Kanaaim pogiim bo” which roughly translates as “Zealots will kill him.” as a tacit and implied license for Zealot activities.

5. The Pharisees helped build the ideology and mythology of the Zealot party through their association of both Pinchas and Elijah the Prophet with the Zealot movement, establishing a clear mythico-historical basis for Zealotry as an acceptable Jewish response to events.

6. Finally, and this one may be seen as quite radical, I will be attacking the notion that “Baseless Hatred” was the cause for the destruction of the Temple. “Baseless Hatred” was a historical reading on the events of the Great Revolt that essentially posits that the reason for failure in the war was the factionalisation of the Zealot party that was more prone to internecine warfare than it was to actually fighting the Romans, and that the Romans essentially exploited this weakness. I will argue that inherent within this position is a support for the war, as the decision to go to war isnt questioned, simply the management and execution of the war. I will attempt (and I’m not yet sure how I will do this) to argue that “Baseless Hatred” was not the cause of the Temple’s destruction, but rather the super-nationalistic tendencies of the Pharisee ideology that made accomodation with Rome an impossibility. I will attempt to demonstrate that there was another strain of Pharisee thought, a minority one, that was not confined to narrow nationalism but was looking towards a universal application of the Jewish ideal, who did not see accomodation with Rome as a compromise position but as a preferred one. I will also show how this ideology is the true successor to the Prophetic visions, especially those of Isaiah, and that the mainstream Pharisee ideology was actually a crude nationalist corruption of the prophetic ideal, and thus place blame for the Temple’s destruction entirely at the feet of the Pharisees.

That’s the essence of what I will be attempting to argue. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the paper, it wont be coming out any time soon.

For the beth din to leave observance to their standards hanging over every convert seems quite unreasonable to me. However, it is important to any conversion that the standard of accepting God and the mitzvot be kept. As you state, the claim regarding the insincerity of the conversion may be reasonable. The question then becomes – how long after a conversion is long enough?