THE ZEALOTS
THE ZEALOTS INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE JEWISH
FREEDOM
M O V E M E N T IN T H E P E R I O D F R O M H E R O ...
64 downloads
650 Views
26MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
THE ZEALOTS
THE ZEALOTS INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE JEWISH
FREEDOM
M O V E M E N T IN T H E P E R I O D F R O M H E R O D I U N T I L 70 A.D.
BY
MARTIN
HENGEL
Institutum Judaicum, Tubingen
T R A N S L A T E D BY
DAVID
SMITH
T. & T. C L A R K EDINBURGH
Authorised English Translation © T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1989. Originally published under the title Die Zelolen: Utitersuchungen zur Judischeti Freiheilsbewegung in der Zeil von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. © E. J. Brill, Leiden/Cologne, 1961; second improved and enlarged edition 1976.
Typeset by C. R. Barber and Partners, Fort William, printed and bound in the U.K. by Billing & Sons Ltd., Worcester for T. & T. CLARK LTD, 59 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2LQ
Authorised English Translation first printed 1989
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Hengel, Martin The Zealots : investigations into the Jewish freedom movement in the period from Herod I until 70 A.D. 1. Zealots (Jewish party)—History I. Title n. Die Zeloten. English 296.8' 1 BM175.Z4 ISBN 0-567-09372-7 (CASED) ISBN 0-567-29372-6 (PAPERBACK)
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T. & T. Clark Ltd.
TO MY
PARENTS
FOREWORD I submitted the present w o r k as a dissertation to the Evangehschtheol. Fakultat of the University of Tiibingen. M y i m m e d i a t e stimulus was the translation of Josephus that had been m a d e b y Professors O . Michel and O . Bauemfeind, a task in w h i c h I had been p e r m i t t e d to collaborate as a research assistant. I a m especially indebted to m y supervisor of studies, Professor Michel, for his constant and lively interest in m y w o r k and for the understanding and patience he has continued to show in its progress, despite the m a n y interruptions and adversities that occurred in the course of it. I have also to thank h i m for the m a n y stimuli that he p r o v i d e d and the valuable suggestions that he made. I also o w e a debt of gratitude to Professor Bauemfeind, m y old friend D r Betz, D r Gese and R a b b i D r Geis in Karlsruhe for the m a n y helpful conversations I had w i t h t h e m . I finished the b o o k a w a y from the University, while I was d o i n g a very different t y p e o f w o r k in industry. T h e r e are certain gaps in the b i b l i o g r a p h y and these w e r e caused by difficulties in obtaining the necessary b o o k s and articles. H o w e v e r , I a m deeply indebted to the staff of the W i i r t t e m b e r g Library in Stuttgart, w h o w e r e quite tireless and did e v e r y t h i n g possible to supply m e w i t h the books I needed. I have also to thank the Institutum J u d a i c u m of T u b i n g e n and D r Betz and H e r r n S c h m i d t in particular for reading and correcting m y text. Finally, m y debt t o m y dear wife simply cannot be expressed in mere w o r d s . A A L E N , 1 M a r c h 1961
M a r t i n Hengel
F O R E W O R D T O THE SECOND
EDITION
Various printing and other errors have been corrected, n e w sources have been added, the b i b h o g r a p h y has been extended and several smaller changes and additions have been m a d e to the text in this second edition. I have also provided an answer to m y critics in a supplement at the end of the b o o k . I have, h o w e v e r , m a d e n o substantial alterations to the text. This seemed unnecessary, as I w o u l d still defend the results of m y original dissertation submitted to the University of T u b i n g e n fourteen years after first publishing it. I have unfortunately n o t had t i m e t o consider the results of D a v i d M . R h o a d s ' very interesting dissertation presented to D u k e University in 1 9 7 3 , Some Jewish Revolutionaries in Palestine from 6 A.D. to 73 A.D. According to Josephus, but I h o p e that it will be possible for m e to m a k e u p for this omission as soon as the b o o k w h i c h is a n n o u n c e d b y Fortress Press appears. I must confess, h o w e v e r , that I remain u n c o n v i n c e d by the author's attempt to play d o w n the i m p o r t a n c e of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t prior to the outbreak of the Jewish W a r in 6 6 A . D . o n the basis of the evidence in Josephus. As an apologist for Judaism, Josephus was vitally concerned to m i n i m i z e as far as possible the influence of the Jewish revolutionaries w h o w e r e opposed to R o m e before the Jewish W a r b r o k e out and to present its effects on the people as u n i m p o r t a n t . This applies particularly to the period b e t w e e n Q u i r i n i u s ' census or the appearance ofjudas of Galilee in 6 A . D . and the death o f K i n g A g r i p p a I in 4 4 A . D . , a period reported only fragmentarily or in the f o r m o f anecdotes b y Josephus. T h e latter's failure to say a n y t h i n g a b o u t the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t of that period can only be seen in the same light as his silence about the Christians. H e also tells us very little a b o u t the Jewish parties and their leaders and there is n o reference of any k i n d in any of his writings to the existence of a Teacher of Righteousness in the Q u m r a n C o m m u n i t y , Simeon b . Shetach, the schools of Hillel and Shammai, the early Christian C h u r c h and its mission or even to the names of the leading c o n t e m p o r a r y Pharisaical teachers u p to and including J o h a n a n b . Zakkai. Is this, h o w e v e r , sufficient reason for causing us to d o u b t that they existed and w e r e active in history? Josephus was a t h o r o u g h l y tendentious writer and w e have to w e i g h w h a t he says and w h a t he omits in the light of his o w n interests. This, of course, makes h i m a very i m p o r t a n t m o d e l for the student of polemics in the ancient ix
X
F O R E W O R D T O THE S E C O N D EDITION
w o r l d . Each one of his statements must be critically examined for its tendency. I h a v e to thank m y colleague H e l m u t Merkel, D r G . O . N e u h a u s and H e r r n D r Fritz Herrenbriick for reading t h r o u g h this b o o k and the last n a m e d especially for his careful compilation of the lengthy index and his corrections to the text. T U B I N G E N , January 1975
M a r t i n Hengel
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N THE ZEALOTS
OF
I decided in September 1 9 5 5 , t h i r t y - t w o years ago, that the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t d u r i n g the period b e t w e e n H e r o d and the Jewish W a r should be the t h e m e of m y dissertation. After spending o n e university year in the Evangelical Stift at T i i b i n g e n as a 'coach' {Repetent), I had b e c o m e a research assistant, w o r k i n g u n d e r Professor O t t o Michel. O n e of m y tasks was to help h i m in the preparation of his translation o(]osephus' Jewish War, w h i c h had b y that t i m e reached the end of B o o k I. I was struck b y the fact that the p r o b l e m s of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , which had b r o u g h t about the Jewish insurrection in 66 A . D . , had so far never been dealt w i t h in a fundamental w a y in the form of a m o n o g r a p h . T h e t h e m e attracted m e also because, at that time, that is, in the mid-nineteen-fifties, there was n o special interest in G e r m a n y in the Jewish e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h early Christianity had c o m e about and in the social and political questions connected w i t h that e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e r e was clearly a great need for this gap to be filled — a need that was strengthened b y the recent finds that had been m a d e at that time at Q u m r a n . T h e emphasis in N e w T e s t a m e n t research in those days was on hermeneutical problems; the d e m y t h o l o g i z a t i o n debate was particularly p r o m i n e n t and the question of the influence of a ' p r e Christian gnosis' was being widely discussed. Even w h e n I was teaching in the Evangelical Stift I had disliked this exegetical euphoria w i t h its one-sided orientation t o w a r d s M a r b u r g University and its speculative tendency to dismiss t o o lightly the true relationships between the sources. I therefore decided to begin m y o w n first w o r k at a completely different point of departure, to let the Jewish sources speak for themselves and at the same t i m e to t h r o w light o n an area to which very little attention had hitherto been given, at least in G e r m a n scholarship. In that respect, I was part of an estabhshed T u b i n g e n tradition. A d o l f Schlatter, the founder of m y present chair at Tiibingen University, had n o t only m a d e essential progress in o u r theological understanding of the Jewish historian — he had also stressed the importance of the rabbinic sources for o u r understanding of early Christianity and its roots. H e had achieved this in his n u m e r o u s publications and in particular in his great c o m m e n t a r i e s . T h e task that I had set myself p r o v i d e d m e w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y to immerse myself in b o t h these fields, w h i c h had been c o m p l e m e n t e d b y the recently discovered Q u m r a n texts and the Pseudepigrapha. As I proceeded w i t h the w o r k , it also became clear to m e that research into xi
xii
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N
ancient Judaism and the early period of Christianity was inseparable from and essentially dependent on a k n o w l e d g e of the surrounding history of the Hellenistic and R o m a n period. It was the w o r k of a largely self-taught m a n . I had completed m y studies relatively quickly in four university years, from 1947 to 1 9 5 1 , that is, in the difficult time following the end of the Second W o r l d W a r . Afterwards, the circumstances prevailing at the t i m e had o b h g e d m e to spend some time first in C h u r c h w o r k (1951/52) — the resulting experience was very valuable — and then, t h o u g h n o t b y choice, in the textile industry and in sales m a n a g e m e n t ( 1 9 4 5 / 6 and 1 9 5 3 / 4 ) . At the Evangelical Stift, I had to teach first philosophy and then introduction to the N e w Testament. Josephus and the rabbinic sources w e r e still completely u n k n o w n territory for m e . T h e r e w e r e n o grants available then for intensive specialized studies and I had to m a k e m y o w n vvay almost unaided in the field of rabbinic literature. T h e r e was at that time too Uttle help and e n c o u r a g e m e n t for specialization, whereas n o w there is sometimes perhaps t o o m u c h . D u r i n g this all t o o brief novitiate in critical study at Tiibingen, which only lasted for t w o and a half years, the s w o r d of Damocles was always h a n g i n g over m e : the threat that I w o u l d have to g o back to industry. W i t h a heavy heart, I left Tiibingen in M a r c h 1 9 5 7 and t h o u g h t it w o u l d be for ever. I had written u p about t w e n t y per cent of the material and had m a d e excerpts of the most i m p o r t a n t sources — there w e r e n o photocopies at that time! I t o o k m y manuscript and materials w i t h m e w h e n I returned of necessity to the completely different e n v i r o n m e n t of industry and m a n a g e m e n t , firmly — I m i g h t almost say, desperately — resolved, w h a t e v e r happened, to finish the w o r k I had b e g u n . T h a t I succeeded in d o i n g this — in spite o f inexpressible difficulties, far from the university w i t h its m a n y stimuh to study and its a b u n d a n t hbrary resources and following a totally different and very exhausting profession — I o w e to a very great extent to the understanding, e n c o u r a g e m e n t and patience of m y wife. T h e w o r k that I submitted as m y dissertation in 1 9 5 9 appeared in print in 1 9 6 1 . A second, i m p r o v e d and enlarged edition appeared in 1 9 7 6 . I have placed this httle autobiographical look at the past at the beginning of the English translation because this w o r k is for m e personally very m u c h m o r e than simply a first b o o k that was followed b y others in a relatively straight line. W h a t I learned from it was an intimate association w i t h ancient Jewish and G r a e c o - R o m a n sources and it was perhaps g o o d that, for reasons of t i m e and because m a n y b o o k s w e r e n o t available to m e , I had to concentrate principally on those
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N
Xlll
sources. At the same time, quite contrary to all h u m a n expectations, it also determined m y future w a y of life and m a d e it possible for m e to return at the end of 1 9 6 4 to the historical and theological study that I loved so m u c h . I was surprised by the positive reception of m y dissertation b y the 'scholarly w o r l d ' w h e n it was published. I responded to a few scholars w h o criticized m y w o r k from the beginning of the nineteen-seventies onwards in an A p p e n d i x (p. 380), w h i c h was pubhshed in a shorter f o r m in the Festschrift written in h o n o u r o f O . Michel (p. 3 8 0 , n. 1). I was n o t very convinced b y the objections that w e r e m a d e at that t i m e and since then, although several y o u n g e r authors have dealt assiduously w i t h the theme, there have been hardly any fresh criticisms. O n e has the impression that the controversy is basically going r o u n d in a circle. W e r e I therefore to write the b o o k again today, I w o u l d n o t m a k e any farreaching change in the fundamental theses of the w o r k , a l t h o u g h I have in details c o m e to some n e w points of view. T h e reader can find information about the contributions m a d e to the debate in the past twelve years in the Supplementary Bibliography (p. 4 3 0 ) . I w o u l d like to deal w i t h a couple of fundamental points in the following paragraphs. (1) W h e n I was writing The Zealots, w o r k s w i t h a strongly historicopolitical and socio-historical flavour w e r e n o t particularly highly regarded. T h a t did n o t trouble m e very m u c h at the t i m e and I also tried to express the social p r o b l e m s of first-century Judaea in m y w o r k . In this respect, research has advanced in a particularly intensive w a y and m y w o r k could certainly be amplified and extended here. In the m e a n t i m e , a radical change has taken place in the situation in research — t o say n o t h i n g of the intellectual fashion. T h e main, indeed the o v e r w h e l m i n g emphasis in any self-respecting w o r k , w h e t h e r it is published in East G e r m a n y or in the U n i t e d States, will b e n o w o n the social reasons for the preparation for and the outbreak of the Jewish W a r . It can — at least partly — base itself o n Josephus, w h o was n o t interested in tracing the catastrophe back to m o v e m e n t s motivated by reUgion. H e was far m o r e concerned, for apologetic reasons, to m a k e a m i n o r i t y of criminals, 'bandits' w h o w e r e striving for possessions and p o w e r and w h o belonged to the dregs of society, and at the same t i m e inefficient and corrupt procurators responsible for the fall of the H o l y C i t y . T h e insurrectionary groups appear then principally as relatively diffuse social revolutionaries w h o w e r e b o u n d together only b y hatred of the exploitative system of an unjust social order sanctioned b y the R o m a n s . This failure to understand the fundamental significance of religious
xiv
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N
views and hopes in Judaism d u r i n g the early R o m a n imperial period, w h i c h also d e t e r m i n e d the political activity of radical groups, must inevitably lead to an erroneous j u d g e m e n t of that fascinating and tragic epoch in Jewish history in w h i c h Christianity e m e r g e d from Jewish roots and at the same t i m e Jewish civilization nearly destroyed itself in three revolts in Judaea (and E g y p t ) . Life was certainly n o better socially for the non-Jewish peasant in Syria, E g y p t and Asia M i n o r than for the Jewish peasant in the m o t h e r l a n d . T h e y w o u l d p r o b a b l y b o t h have profited m u c h m o r e from the imperial Pax Romana, w h i c h b r o u g h t an end to the unending wars and civil wars of the late Hellenistic period and introduced an — u n d o u b t e d l y relative — legal certainty, w h i c h did n o t completely exclude the peregrini. N o insurrections took place there between Augustus and Hadrian of a violence comparable to that of the three Jewish revolts. Leo M i l d e n b e r g has s h o w n in a very convincing w a y in his great m o n o g r a p h . The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, {Typos. Monographien zur antiken Numismatik 4), Aarau, Frankfurt a.M. and Salzburg 1 9 8 4 , see G n o m o n 58, 1986, 3 2 6 - 3 3 1 , that the economic relationships of the Jewish peasants w e r e b y n o means so bad on the eve of the revolt of Bar Koseba that their uprising could be based on social distress. This applies particularly to Judaea in the first century A . D . , w h e r e considerable wealth had accumulated in Jerusalem, which had been developed b y H e r o d as a w o r l d - w i d e place of pilgrimage of unique importance. Social distress certainly also played at times an essential part in the prehistory of the first revolt and especially in its further course, but it was n o t the d o m i n a n t and main reason. It was n o t a revolt of the rural proletariat fighting for its survival. T h e Jewish uprisings can also hardly be c o m p a r e d w i t h the uprisings that took place in other parts of the R o m a n E m p i r e in the first century: the seven-year w a r of the N u m i d i a n Tacfarinas ( 1 7 - 2 4 A.D.) and the revolt of the Batavian Julius Civilis and Julius Classicus of the T r e v e r i in 69 A . D . , all of w h o m had first been R o m a n officers, the disturbances caused by the predatory Isaurians in Asia M i n o r or the Bucolics in the marshes of the Nile Delta and so on. T h e ultimate cause of all three suicidal wars is in the end u n d o u b t e d l y to be found in the Jewish religion, w h i c h was u n i q u e in the ancient w o r l d w i t h its theocratic ideal and its especially p r o n o u n c e d eschatological expectation a r o u n d the turn of the millennium. It is not purely by chance that the only occurrence of the w o r d GeoKpaxia in antiquity is in Josephus {Ap 2 , 1 6 5 ; see also p . 3 7 6 , n. 315) to n a m e the special form of the Jewish state, whereas Philo speaks of G o d ' s n o v a p x i a in connection
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N
XV
w i t h the first c o m m a n d m e n t . If these terms are used in a politically coarser sense u n d e r the rubric 'rule of G o d ' , it is surely only a step to Judas the Galilaean, w i t h w h o m — even in the opinion of Josephus himself— that religious and political ideology that led to the catastrophe of 7 0 A . D . had its beginning. T . M o m m s e n described this state of affairs b o t h concisely and precisely in his very impressively w r i t t e n chapter o n J u d a e a and the J e w s ' in the fifth v o l u m e of his w o r k on R o m a n History and quite correctly referred at the b e g i n n i n g of the same chapter t o the 'Mosaic theocracy' and the controversial n e w form that it assumed after the Maccabaean uprising. A n o t h e r outstanding historian, Jacob B u r k h a r d t , n o t only n a m e d the Jews, in the chapter o n 'the state as conditioned b y reHgion' ('Der Staat in seiner Bedingtheit d u t c h die R e l i g i o n ' ) in his Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, as occupying the first place a m o n g 'the greatest, the historically most i m p o r t a n t and the most powerful theocracies', b u t also regarded this as an essential characteristic of their history: ' O n e sees the Jews again and again striving t o w a r d s theocracy t h r o u g h o u t all the changes that took place in their history' (Kroner, ed. R . M e r x , 1 9 3 5 , 108). H e also calls the Jewish revolts b o t h briefly and pertinently 'outbursts of religious anger' (ibid., 166; m y italics), w h i c h can, for this reason, be distinguished from the revolts in the other provinces that were socially conditioned. A n y o n e w h o fails to recognize this special religious character of the Jewish revolts against R o m e — all of w h i c h had an eschatological and messianic aspect — and at the same t i m e their uniqueness, will n o t be able to j u d g e the events in Judaea b e t w e e n 6 and 70 A . D . in accordance w i t h the facts. T h e p o w e r of fanatical Islamic fundamentalism that is so frightening for e n h g h t e n e d Europeans and Americans today m a y well serve as an example to enable us to understand the feelings that the Greeks and R o m a n s experienced w h e n confronted with the furor ludaicus. Tacitus' statements in his Hist 5 , 5 . 1 - 3 ; 13.3 (see p . 384) speak for themselves. (2) For this reason, w e are b o u n d to g o further and e x a m i n e the religious ideology that determined the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , despite its fragmentation from the beginning of the Jewish R e v o l t itself. A fundamental denial of the existence of such an ideology w o u l d certainly lead to a w r o n g assessment of the situation. A fundamental importance has u n d o u b t e d l y to be attributed to the figure o f j u d a s the Galilaean. Zeal for G o d and his law, w h i c h led to the h o n o r a r y title of 'Zealot', must also have played an essential part. Josephus, it is true, gives the n a m e 'Zealot' from the outbreak of the revolt — almost — only to one g r o u p in Jerusalem, that is, to the o v e r w h e l m i n g l y priestly ^TiXcoxai.
xvi
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N
T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , exceptions to this and in particular the first mention o f t h e m in Bell 2 , 4 4 4 , w h e r e the n a m e is applied to the followers of J u d a s ' son, M e n a h e m , a g r o u p of m e n w h o m Josephus as a rule describes as Sicarii (a w o r d derived from the Latin sicarius, assassin). This was certainly n o t a n a m e that the m e m b e r s of this earHest insurrectionary g r o u p originally gave themselves. I have g o n e into all these questions so exhaustively that I a m b o u n d to ask w h e t h e r individual critics have really read w h a t I have said about the matter. I a m for this reason particularly grateful for this English translation, because it m a y possibly m a k e it easier for certain scholars to take cognizance of a r g u m e n t s . If, for example, it is asserted that the use of the t e r m Xv^cxai, w h i c h is so striking in Josephus' w o r k , should be applied for social reasons, n o t to insurgents w h o w e r e motivated by religion, b u t to ordinary robbers, then it is easy to show, by referring to R e n g s t o r f s concordance, that, w i t h only one exception {Ant 9,183 = 4 R e g 1 3 , 2 0 f ) , these ' r o b b e r s ' only appeared at the beginning of the R o m a n rule and, m o r e precisely, w i t h the victory of the y o u n g H e r o d over the ' R o b b e r C a p t a i n ' Hezekiah, w h o was quite certainly n o t an ordinary r o b b e r captain {Bell 1,204 = Ant 14,159). As in the case of his entire presentation of H e r o d in his Jewish War and in Antiquities, 14—17 Josephus has here taken over the linguistic usage of his notoriously p r o R o m a n and anti-Jewish source Nicolaus of Damascus, w h o was influenced b y the R o m a n linguistic rule, that is, to describe all irregular insurgents acting against the p o w e r of R o m e as latrones and n o t as hastes (see p . 382). Josephus generally uses this defamatory w a y of speaking for his o w n w o r k , including the Vita. Even today, in the official j a r g o n of the g o v e r n m e n t of Afghanistan and its 'protecting p o w e r ' , the Mujahedin w h o are fighting for their Islamic faith and for the freedom of their h o m e l a n d are called 'bandits'. H o w often events repeat themselves in the history of m a n ! As for the p r o b l e m o f ' p a r t y n a m e s ' , it is possible to show b y means of n u m e r o u s examples in the m o d e r n w o r l d h o w variable and interchangeable they are. T h e same also appHes to ancient Judaism: ' W e are confronted . . . b y a cardinal p r o b l e m w h e n w e c o m p a r e between Josephus' description of the aristocratic non-strict Sadducees and the H a l a k h o t h ascribed to the Sadducees in the T a l m u d , for they d o n o t tally'. In the as yet unpublished Halakhic letter that was presumably w r i t t e n b y the Teacher of Righteousness to the 'godless high-priest', the a u t h o r pleads in favour of the H a l a k h o t h , as attributed in the T a l m u d i c sources to the Sadducees. W h o , then, w e r e the true 'Sadducees'? W a s the T a l m u d i c tradition or was Josephus right? O r w e r e b o t h right? In the
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N
xvii
same letter, the a u t h o r stresses: ' W e have separated ourselves from the multitude of the peo(ple) (pr^nw m r w b h ' [ m ] ) ' . W h o , then, w e r e the true 'Pharisees'? (see E. Q i m r o n and J. Strugnell, ' A n U n p u b l i s h e d Halakhic Letter from Q u m r a n ' , The Israel Museum Journal 14 (1985), 9 - 1 2 , especially 10). In a w o r d , then, I believe that it is highly likely that the followers of Judas the Galilaean t h o u g h t of themselves as the true 'Zealots' — for G o d and his law — and regarded later groups that t o o k over this n a m e and m a y perhaps have b r o k e n a w a y from t h e m as apostates. T h e fact that Josephus — w h o , together w i t h several rabbinic and patristic references which confirm m y supposition (see p. 74), is o u r only (and unfortunately very tendentious and indeed unreliable) source — withholds this religious honorary title, the origin of w h i c h he of course k n e w very well {Bell 7,269ff.; 4 , 1 0 6 f ) , from t h e m , the m a i n culprits, m a y well be connected w i t h its being too positive a title for these criminals. In his opinion, they w e r e only c o m m o n ' m u r d e r e r s ' , in other words, Sicarii. I hope, then, that this English translation of m y b o o k m a y give a few n e w impulses to the debate about the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t u p to the first war, a debate that seems to have reached a dead-end. I have to thank the pubHshers and the translator for u n d e r t a k i n g a difficult task. I w o u l d also Hke to thank m y students, U l r i c h Heckel and Anna Maria S c h w e m e r , Institutum J u d a i c u m , Tiibingen, for proofreading, and especially Paul C a t h e y , Institutum J u d a i c u m Delitzschianum, Miinster, for proofreading and editing the translation. T U B I N G E N , July 1988
Martin Hengel
C O N T E N T S FOREWORD
vii
F O R E W O R D T O THE SECOND EDITION
ix
F O R E W O R D T O THE ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N OF T H E ZEALOTS
xi
INTRODUCTION
1
1. 2.
T h e History of Research T h e Structure and A i m of the Presentation
1 3
I.
T H E SOURCES
6
A. Josephus as the Principal Source Excursus I: T h e Slavonic Josephus
6 16
B.
18 18 20 20 20
T h e Secondary Sources 1. C o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish Sources 2. T h e R a b b i n i c Sources 3. T h e Christian Sources 4 . O t h e r Ancient A u t h o r s II.
T H E V A R I O U S N A M E S GIVEN T O THE JEWISH F R E E D O M MOVEMENT
24
A. T h e ' R o b b e r s ' 1. T h e Ancient Linguistic Usage Excursus II: T h e Scourge of R o b b e r s in the Ancient W o r l d (a) In the R o m a n E m p i r e (b) In Syria and Palestine (c) T h e J u d g e m e n t and P u n i s h m e n t of ' R o b b e r s ' (d) T h e Social Causes 2 . T h e D''Op^V in the R a b b i n i c Literature 3. T h e X r i a x a i in Josephus
41
B . T h e Sicarii 1. T h e Basic Latin M e a n i n g 2. T h e Sicarii in Josephus 3. T h e Sicarii in the R a b b i n i c Literature Excursus III: T h e Sikarikon L a w
46 46 46 50 51
xix
24 24 25 25 27 30 33 34
XX
CONTENTS
C . Barjone and Galilaeans 1. The Barjone C1V^2) 2. T h e GaHlaeans
53 53 56
D . T h e 'Zealots' 1. Greek Linguistic Usage 2. T h e 'Zealots' as a Party in Josephus' Jewish War 3. T h e ' Z e a l o t s ' a s a Party in the Jewish Tradition 4. T h e 'Zealots' in Christian Sources
59 59 62 66 69
E.
Summary
73
III. J U D A S THE GALILAEAN'S ' F O U R T H PHILOSOPHY'
76
A. T h e Statements m a d e in the Sources B.
T h e ' F o u r t h Philosophy' as an Independent Party within Late Judaism 1. T h e ' F o u r t h Philosophy': Exclusive Fraternity and Independent M o v e m e n t 2. T h e ' F o u r t h Philosophy' and the Pharisees 3. T h e N a m e of the N e w M o v e m e n t
C . T h e Message o f Judas the Galilaean 1. T h e Sole R u l e of G o d (a) T h e Statement m a d e in the Sources (b) T h e Different Points o f D e p a r t u r e of the N e w Doctrine (aa) T h e K i n g d o m of G o d (bb) 'I a m the Lord y o u r G o d . . .' (cc) Palestinian Judaism's E n c o u n t e r w i t h the Cult of the E m p e r o r (c) T h e Further Effect of the Idea of the Sole R u l e of God 2. Israel's F r e e d o m (a) In Josephus (b) O n the Jewish Coins of the R e v o l t (c) In the R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n 3. C o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h G o d in the R e d e m p t i o n of Israel (a) T h e Statements m a d e b y Josephus (b) T h e 'Forcing' of the T i m e of Salvation in the Rabbinate
76
82 82 86 88 90 90 90 91 91 94 99 107 110 110 116 118 122 122 123
CONTENTS
4.
T h e Census (a) T h e Population C o u n t (b) T h e Registration of Landed P r o p e r t y (c) T h e P a y m e n t of Taxes to the E m p e r o r (d) Judas the Galilaean and the Religious M o t i v a t i o n for the J e w s ' Resistance to the Census and the P a y m e n t of Taxes
D . S u m m a r y : T h e Religious Character of the M o v e m e n t founded b y Judas 1. Judas' Sect Considered as a Nationalist M o v e m e n t 2. A S u m m a r y of the Events Discussed So Far IV.
ZEAL
A. T h e O l d Testament Presuppositions of Zeal for G o d 1. T h e Jealous G o d 2. Zeal for Y a h w e h B.
Zeal for the Law in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h the T r a d i t i o n of Phinehas 1. Zeal at the T i m e of the Maccabees 2. T h e Maccabaean 'Zeal for the L a w ' and the Figure of Phinehas in Josephus' W r i t i n g s 3. Phinehas (or Elijah) and his Zeal in the R a b b i n i c Tradition (a) Sifre N u m b e r s 25 and the C o n t i n u a t i o n o f the R a b b i n i c Exegesis in N u m b e r s R a b b a h and the Talmuds (b) Phinehas as a Leader in the H o l y W a r (c) Phinehas' Eternal High-Priesthood and his Identification w i t h Elijah (d) T h e R a b b i n i c Criticism of Phinehas and Elijah 4. S u m m a r y : Phinehas the Zealot as a M o d e l for the Maccabees and the Zealots (a) T h e Maccabees and the Zealots (b) T h e Zealots and the R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n of Phinehas
Xxi
127 129 131 134
138
140 141 144 146
146 146 147
149 149 154 156
156 160 162 168 171 171 17 3
C. ' Z e a l ' a s a Typical Element of Piety in Late J u d a i s m
177
D . Zeal for the L a w and the Sanctuary in Palestinian J u d a i s m and a m o n g the Zealots 1. T h e ' L a w l e s s n e s s ' o f the Zealots according to Josephus
183 183
xxii
CONTENTS
2.
3.
E.
Zeal for Israel's Purity and for her Religious Privileges (a) T h e Struggle against Magic and Sexual Intercourse w i t h Pagans (b) T h e Struggle for a Strict Observance of the Law Prohibiting Images (c) C o m p u l s o r y Circumcision as a Protection of Israel's Privileges (d) T h e Eighteen H a l a k h o t h and Separation from the Pagans Zeal for the Purity of the Sanctuary (a) T h e T h r e a t to the T e m p l e from the Pagan R u l e r s (b) T h e Desecration of the Sanctuary from the Jewish Side (c) Efforts to Preserve the Purity of the T e m p l e (d) T h e 'Purification' of the T e m p l e b y the Zealots (e) T h e Sanctuary as the Central P o i n t and Stronghold in the Final Battle against Titus
S u m m a r y : Zeal as an Eschatological Intensification of the Torah
V.
186 186 190 197 200 206 206 210 214 217 221
224
T H E ZEALOTS AS AN ESCHATOLOGICAL M O V E M E N T
229
A. Zealot Prophets 1 . T h e False Prophets according to Josephus 2 . P r o p h e c y in Late Judaism 3 . T h e Zealots' P r o p h e c y as a Charismatic and Eschatological Interpretation of Scripture (a) A Messianic P r o p h e c y (b) P r o p h e c y and C o u n t e r - P r o p h e c y in the Last Battle for the T e m p l e 4. Summary
229 229 233
B.
T h e T i m e of Great A n g e r 1 . T h e Eschatological W o e s in Late Judaism 2 . T h e 'Messianic W o e s ' and the Zealot M o v e m e n t
C. T h e R e t r e a t into the Desert 1. T h e R e t r e a t into the Desert P h e n o m e n o n in Late Judaism 2 . T h e Zealots in the Desert
236 237 240 244 245 245 247 249
as
a
Widespread 249 253
CONTENTS
XXni
D . Readiness for M a r t y r d o m 1. Martyrs in Judaism of the Hellenistic and R o m a n Period until the T i m e of H e r o d 2. M a r t y r d o m a m o n g the Zealots (a) T w o Cases of M a r t y r d o m u n d e r H e r o d (b) Zealot M a r t y r s 3. R e h g i o u s Suicide as a Special F o r m of M a r t y r d o m 4. S u m m a r y : T h e Zealots' U n d e r s t a n d i n g of M a r t y r d o m
256
E.
T h e Holy W a r 1. In the O l d Testament and the Maccabaean Period 2. T h e Eschatological-Dualistic and the Messianic Interpretation of the H o l y W a r in the Apocalyptic Literature and the W a r Scroll (a) T h e Eschatological-Dualistic Interpretation (b) T h e Messiah as the Leader in the Eschatological W a r (c) T h e W a r Scroll 3. T h e H o l y W a r and the Zealots (a) T h e Period leading u p to the O u t b r e a k of the Jewish War (b) T h e Jewish W a r as a ' H o l y W a r ' 4. S u m m a r y Excursus IV: T h e Observance of the Sabbath and the H o l y War
271 271
Zealot Messianic Pretenders 1. T h e Presuppositions 2. Messianic Pretenders in the Jewish F r e e d o m M o v e m e n t (a) F r o m the Bandit Leader Hezekiah to Judas the Galilaean (b) M e n a h e m as a Zealot Messiah (c) Simon bar Giora 3. T h e Son of David 4. T h e Zealots' Messianic Hope and Palestinian Christianity
290 290 291
G. T h e Final Victory and Israel's R u l e of the W o r l d 1. T h e Annihilation of the W o r l d P o w e r that was Hostile to G o d (a) T h e J u d g e m e n t of R o m e (b) T h e Eschatological T y r a n t (c) T h e Annihilation of the P o w e r of R o m e
302
F.
256 257 257 259 262 265
273 273 275 277 282 282 283 286 287
291 293 297 298 300
302 302 303 305
Xxiv
CONTENTS
2.
T h e R u l e of G o d and his People (a) T h e R u l e of G o d (b) T h e R u l e of Israel
H. Summary VI.
T H E DEVELOPMENT OF THE Z E A L O T M O V E M E N T
A. T h e Prehistory until the Banishment of Archelaus 1. T h e R o b b e r Captain 'Hezekiah' and the Disturbances in Galilee o n H e r o d ' s C o m i n g to P o w e r 2. Herod's Rule 3 . T h e Disturbances following H e r o d ' s D e a t h B.
F r o m the F o u n d i n g of the ' F o u r t h Philosophy' to the Death of Agrippa I 1 . T h e F o u n d i n g of the N e w M o v e m e n t b y Judas the Galilaean 2 . T h e Zealot M o v e m e n t in the T i m e of Jesus 3 . F r o m Pilate until the D e a t h of H e r o d Agrippa I
C . T h e Spread of the Zealot M o v e m e n t after the Death of Agrippa I until the O u t b r e a k of the Jewish W a r 1 . T h e D e v e l o p m e n t from Cuspius Fadus until the Deposition of C u m a n u s 2 . T h e Increasing Deterioration of the Situation from Fehx until Albinus 3 . T h e Final Escalation of the Situation u n d e r Gessius Floras D . T h e Collapse of the Zealot M o v e m e n t in the Jewish W a r and its End 1. Eleazar and M e n a h e m 2 . T h e Further C o u r s e of the Jewish W a r until the Defeat of Cestius Gallus 3 . T h e Political C h a n g e following the Jewish Victory over Cestius, the Civil W a r resulting from this and the End of the Insurrectionary M o v e m e n t
306 306 308 310 313
313 313 318 325
330 330 337 341
343 343 348 355
358
358 366
369
A Survey of the W h o l e and an Indication of the Questions posed b y the N e w T e s t a m e n t
377
A p p e n d i x : Zealots and Sicarii Abbreviations, BibHographies, and Indexes
380 405
I N T R O D U C T I O N
1. T H E H I S T O R Y OF R E S E A R C H
T h e history of Palestinian Judaism from the t i m e of P o m p e y ' s conquest of Jerusalem until the R e v o l t of Bar Koseba a b o u t t w o h u n d r e d years later is deeply m a r k e d b y the J e w s ' struggle for religious and political freedom. It was during the m i d d l e period of those t w o centuries — from the t i m e w h e n Judaea b e c a m e a R o m a n province until the destruction of Jerusalem - that the so-called 'Zealots' appeared as exponents of that struggle for freedom. O t h e r late Jewish parties and sects such as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and even the early Palestinian Christians have been studied, often in great detail, o n n u m e r o u s occasions, b u t there h a v e been relatively few exhaustive studies of the freedom m o v e m e n t of the Zealots. T h e old masters of Jewish historiography, Graetz' and Derenbourg,^ devoted special attention, it is true, t o the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Jewish struggle for independence and added a great deal o f information to the data p r o v i d e d b y Josephus b y e x a m i n i n g the rabbinic sources. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the essence and the soUdarity of the Zealot freedom m o v e m e n t could never b e fully elaborated in these general treatments of the subject. K. Kohler attempted to d o this in his article 'Zealots' in The Jewish Encyclopaedia and later in an essay in the Festschrift in h o n o u r of A, Harkavy.^ H e was, however, so limited b y space that all that he was really able to d o was t o assemble the material, although he carried o u t this task in a masterly way. Schiirer gave very little consideration in his great historical w o r k
' H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, III, 1/2, Geschichte der Judder von dem Tode Makkabis bis zum Untergang desjiidischen Staates, 5th. ed., rev. M. Braun, Leipzig 1905, see Index under 'Zeloten' and nn. 24,26 and 29. ^ J. Derenbourg, Essai sur I'histoire et laghgraphie de la Palestine d'apris les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. Premike Partie: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrusjusqu'h Adrien, Paris 1867, 237ff. ' SeeJE 12 (1906), 639-643 and the article 'Wer waren die Zeloten oder Kannaim?', Festschrift in Ehren des Dr A. Harkavy, Petersburg 1909, 6-18. In his Jewish Sects and Parties in. the Time of Jesus, London 1925, J.W. Lightley also provides a portrait of the Zealots, but confines himself almost exclusively to the data supplied by Josephus. His work is therefore clearly retrograde in comparison with that of the Jewish scholars.
2
INTRODUCTION
to the Zealot m o v e m e n t , ' ' b u t A d o l f Schlatter discussed the theological aspects of the m o v e m e n t in particular in several of his works. H e also clearly recognized the i m p o r t a n c e of the Zealots for o u r understanding of the N e w T e s t a m e n t and the gospels especially.' R o b e r t Eisler's constant t h e m e was Zealotism and the N e w Testament,* but, despite his 'speculative genius',' the breadth of his learning and the wealth of striking individual observations, his results can hardly be regarded as vaUd. Joseph Klausner approached the question of the Zealots from the distinctive point of view o f Jewish nationalism. T h e t w o final volumes of his 'History of the Second T e m p l e ' contain w h a t is probably the most detailed s u m m a r y of the historical material concerning the Zealots, b u t again this is presented within the f r a m e w o r k of a general treatment of late Jewish history.* In addition to the authors w h o s e w o r k I have m e n t i o n e d so far, there are m a n y others w h o h a v e expressed opinions m o r e briefly about the Zealots. T h e very diversity of these views points to the fact that there has been httle a g r e e m e n t about the form and d e v e l o p m e n t of this m o v e m e n t . Zealotism has, for example, been regarded b y some scholars partly at least as n o m o r e than a general tendency within late J u d a i s m . ' O n the other h a n d , the Zealot party has also been seen as n o m o r e than a single g r o u p w i t h i n the Jewish W a r . ' " T h e r e has always been a t e m p t a t i o n to misinterpret Zealotism in a nationalistic poUtical sense." M o r e recently, W . R . Farmer has pointed to the close cormection b e t w e e n the Zealots and the tradition of the Maccabaean period, b u t he t o o has left m a n y i m p o r t a n t questions o p e n in his speciaUzed study. W h a t he failed a b o v e all t o emphasize sufficiently was the p r o b l e m of the
* History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ, Edinburgh 1973-86, 1, 382, 462ff. ^Geschichte Israels von Alexander dem Grossen bis Hadrian, 3rd. ed., Stuttgart 1925, 259ff. and passim, see Index; 'Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus', BFChTh.M, 2nd. Series 11, 3rd. and 4th. eds. (1926), see Index; Die Geschichte des Christus, Stuttgart 1921, 304ff. In his article , C,f[Ko(;, TD 2, 884ff., A. Stumpff for the most part uses Schlatter's results. ' 'IrjGOvg PaaiXeix; o6 PamXevcrag, die messianische UnabhUngigkeitsbewegung vom Aufreten Johannes des Tdufers . . . , 2 Vols., Heidelberg 1929/30. ' 'Kombinatorische Magie'; M. Dibelius described R . Eisler's method in this way; see ThBl 6 (1927), 219. "••ItPn n"'an VB? n m o c n , 4th. ed., Jerusalem 5 7 1 4 + 1954, see Index 5, 317, under D-Nlj?. See also J. Klausner, _/«MJ of Nazareth, 1925, 168, 203ff. 'See, for example, C. Guignebert and Bo Reicke; see below, p. 82, n. 33. See especially F.J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, the editors of The Beginnings of Christianity, 1, The Acts of the Apostles, London 1920, 1, 42Iff. " See, for example, S. D u b n o w and H. Preisker; see below, 141.
INTRODUCTION
3
possible eschatological character o f b o t h m o v e m e n t s . ' ^ T h e manuscript discoveries of the D e a d Sea led several scholars to suppose that the authors of the scrolls should be identified w i t h the Z e a l o t s . " This view could n o t , h o w e v e r , be sustained, since there w e r e powerful archaeological, c o m p a r a t i v e and historical reasons against it.'* It is therefore hardly necessary for m e t o discuss here the often very forced connections that w e r e at one t i m e m a d e b e t w e e n Q u m r a n and the Zealots.
2. T H E S T R U C T U R E AND A I M OF THE PRESENTATION
In this b o o k I have tried to find a w a y from the sources to an understanding of the particular religious n a t u r e and the historical g r o w t h of the Zealot m o v e m e n t during the m o r e restricted period between H e r o d I and the Jewish W a r . T h r o u g h o u t , I have also attempted to interpret the sources in the Ught of the corresponding religious views in latejudaism and rabbinism generally. T h e sources are, h o w e v e r , so diverse and fragmentary that frequently n o m o r e than simply a degree of probability can be reached in the case o f individual results and w e very often have to be satisfied w i t h hypotheses that can b e substantiated only to a very h m i t e d extent. Despite these very real difficulties, I have sought to achieve as complete a picture of the Zealot m o v e m e n t as possible. T h e structure of m y study can be summarized as follows: (1) I begin with a critical examination of the sources and in particular of the principal source, the w o r k s of Josephus. (2) I then consider from the philological and historical points of view the names given b y various
W . R . Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period, N e w York 1956; see also the same author's article, 'Judas, Simon and Athronges', NTS 4 (1957/58), 147ff. " The first to express this view was H.E. del Medico, Deux manuscrits de la Mer Morte (1951) and The Riddle of the Scrolls (1958). J. Klausner, Hist 5, 324flr., also suspected that there was a connection between the Scrolls and the Zealots. C. Roth, The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford 1958, and G.R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, Oxford 1965, are prominent among those who have supported this thesis more recently. " H . H . Rowley, 'Qumran, the Essenes and the Zealots', Von Ugarit nach Qumran, Beitrdge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung, O. Eissfeldt dargebracht, Berlin 1958, 184-192, has been especially prominent in showing how untenable these suppositions are. See also the number of theories quoted by M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1956, 123-186. For the refutation of the hypothesis that the Zealots were the authors of the Scrolls, see the same author's More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1958, 232245,271-274, and R. de Vaux, 'Essenes or Zealots?', NTS 13 (1966/67), 89-104.
4
INTRODUCTION
sides to the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t . (3) This leads on to a consideration of the sect of the 'fourth philosophy' founded by Judas of Galilee. I begin b y a t t e m p t i n g to bring out as clearly as possible the independent character and the organization of the party that originated w i t h Judas and then g o o n to discuss the distinctive features of this n e w sect: its d e m a n d for the exclusive rule of G o d , co-operation w i t h G o d in the struggle for freedom and a rejection of the census. W h a t emerges from this investigation is the primarily religious character of this n e w movement. (4) T h e following chapter is devoted t o an examination of the concept o f ' z e a l ' . M y point of departure is the understanding of Phinehas in the Jewish tradition. T h e m e a n i n g of zeal in c o n t e m p o r a r y Judaism generally is then considered and this is followed b y an analysis of'zeal' in connection w i t h the Zealot m o v e m e n t , divided into its t w o aspects of zeal for the law and zeal for the sanctuary. This fourth chapter concludes b y s h o w i n g that this zeal has to be seen as an eschatological intensification of the law. (5) T h e various eschatological aspects of the Zealot m o v e m e n t are e x a m i n e d n e x t and related to the w i d e r context of Jewish eschatology. T h e essential features here are prophetic enthusiasm and the idea of a p r e messianic t i m e of suffering. It is in the light of these features that such concrete factors as the renunciation of possessions, flight into the desert and an unconditional readiness t o die as a m a r t y r can be explained. T h e w a y to the rule o f the Messiah Hes via a H o l y W a r . T h e ultimate aim is Israel's g o v e r n m e n t of the w o r l d . (6) T h e final chapter provides a survey of the historical development of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , beginning w i t h a consideration of the m u r d e r of Hezekiah, the leader of the band o f ' r o b b e r s ' , b y the y o u n g K i n g H e r o d I. T h e latter's rule thus prepared the w a y for the disturbances that b r o k e out i m m e d i a t e l y after his death. T h e rebels w e r e , h o w e v e r , initially w i t h o u t organization or ideological cohesion. These w e r e only achieved b y Judas. F r o m his time onwards, the 'Zealots' f o r m e d a party that, t h o u g h quite close to Pharisaism, was nonetheless independent. Josephus' very fragmentary reporting, h o w e v e r , enables us to follow their d e v e l o p m e n t only partially, a l t h o u g h traces of t h e m can also be found in the N e w Testament and the rabbinic tradition. T h e Zealots achieved their aim w h e n the Jewish W a r b r o k e out, b u t the party was divided at the crucial m o m e n t w h e n M e n a h e m , J u d a s ' son, was m u r d e r e d . F r o m then o n w a r d s , there w e r e several different g r o u p s in conflict w i t h each other. T h e y perpetuated
INTRODUCTION
5
the spiritual heritage of the Zealots, b u t w e r e themselves incapable of decisive, united action. T h e fundamental thesis should n o w be apparent from this s u m m a r y of the structure of the b o o k . It is that the 'Zealots' formed a relatively exclusive and unified m o v e m e n t w i t h its o w n distinctive reUgious views and that they had a crucial influence o n the history of Palestinian Judaism in the decisive period b e t w e e n 6 and 7 0 A . D .
CHAPTER I T H E
S O U R C E S
T h e question of the essential n a t u r e o f the Zealot m o v e m e n t can only be answered b y e x a m i n i n g the nature and tendency of the sources. This is the fundamental difficulty confronting any scholar w h o tries to arrive at a m o r e precise understanding of the subject.
A. JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
T h e fullest account of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t during the period w i t h w h i c h w e are concerned here is p r o v i d e d b y the Jewish a u t h o r Flavins Josephus. Almost e v e r y t h i n g that w e k n o w comes from his Jewish War and B o o k s X I I I - X X of his Antiquities of the Jews and, for one very definite period, the t i m e at the beginning of the Jewish W a r , his so-called Life. Josephus' w o r k s , h o w e v e r , confront us w i t h t w o p r o b l e m s . O n the one hand, the a u t h o r uses sources of different tendencies and from various origins and, o n the other, h e reveals in the selection and evaluation of his material a very distinctive position that, m o r e o v e r , varies s o m e w h a t in the individual writings. His political attitude was d e t e r m i n e d a b o v e all b y his o w n b a c k g r o u n d and life-style. H e was a m e m b e r of the priestly nobility of Jerusalem, the distinguished class of Jehoiarib, to w h i c h the Hasmonaeans, w i t h w h o m he was directly related, also belonged.' H e therefore m o v e d in circles, the o v e r w h e l m i n g majority of whose m e m b e r s w e r e hostile to the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , at least from the t i m e of H e r o d I o n w a r d s . Later, h e described himself as a follower of the Pharisees,^ b u t he and his family also had close b o n d s of friendship w i t h the leading Sadducees.' His activities in Galilee b r o u g h t h i m into opposition w i t h the leaders of the radical w i n g of the rebels* and he b r o k e definitively w i t h their party w h e n h e eventually w e n t over to the
' Vita 2,198; Bell 1,3; 3,352; Ap 1,54; see also 1 Chron 24.7-18; 1 Mace 2.1,14. His great-great-grandfather married one of the daughters of the high-priest Jonathan. ^ Vita 12. This statement has to be accepted with some caution; see below, p. 371, n. 286. ' Vita 204 describes Josephus as a tpiXo? . . .Kol ouvf|9Tii; of the high-priest Jeshua b. Gamala. ^Bell 2,585fr.593f598; Vita 43fr.l34ff. etc.
JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
7
R o m a n s . H e received a substantial r e w a r d for his services t o the victorious R o m a n s after the end of the W a r . ' H e was also granted R o m a n citizenship and a pension after having been released from prison b y the E m p e r o r and he h v e d in the palace that had previously b e l o n g e d to Vespasian.* Because he was indebted in this w a y to the Flavian imperial house, Josephus dedicated the w h o l e of his w r i t t e n w o r k to the E m p e r o r . Even the title of his first w o r k , On the Jewish War, shows that it was w r i t t e n from the R o m a n point of v i e w . ' T h e Greek version that has c o m e d o w n to us was preceded b y an A r a m a i c text, w h i c h aimed a b o v e all to d r a w the attention of the n o n - R o m a n East to the p o w e r of R o m e ' s w e a p o n s and the futihty of a rebellion.' T h e later Greek text was a free and extended adaptation o f the A r a m a i c original. It is w r i t t e n in briUiant, classical Greek,' b u t Josephus was o n his o w n admission n o t particularly gifted in the Greek language. Greek styHsts must therefore h a v e played a part in its final composition,"" w h i c h also explains w h y this historical w o r k b y the son of a priest from Jerusalem was clothed in such a completely Hellenistic g a r m e n t . T h e final version o f T h e Jewish W a r was produced b e t w e e n 7 5 and 7 9 A . D . " It was dedicated to Vespasian and Titus,'^ w h o p r o v i d e d it w i t h a signature in his o w n h a n d . " Josephus' main source for the details of the early history of the Maccabaean period, until Archelaus b e c a m e ethnarch, was the historical
' Vita ^T1A1SA19. His reward consisted o f quite extensive estates and during the reign o f Domitian h e was exempted from paying taxes. »Vita 423. 'Josephus himself uses this title in his later writings; Atit 20,258 (Vita 412): Ttepi TOC 'Iou5oiKoO itoXinou. The first scholar t o point this out was R . Laqueur, Der jtidische Historiker Flavius Josephus, 1920, 98. In the manuscripts taken into account by Niese in his edition, the title (with the exception o f the first two books of Codex Parisianus) is TtEpi dXtboECOi;; see his introduction t o 6, iii. R . Eisler, 1, 264fr., assumed that this was the title o f the original Aramaic version. • Bell 1,3.6. It is not possible to determine the relationship between this version and the Greek Polemos. R . Eisler, l,135f, has correctly assumed that this tendentious political document was intended not only for the Jews, but also for all Aramaic speaking people in the East. 'According to H. St. J. Thackeray, Jwep/iMi, the Man and Historian, 1929, 104, Josephus' work was ' a n excellent specimen of Atticistic Greek'. '"Ant 20,263; Ap 1,50. For the great number o f Greek stylists engaged in this work, see W. Weber,>5ep/iMi and Vespasian, 1921, 13 and H. St. J. Thackeray, op. cit., lOSff. " T h e earliest date was the dedication o f the Temple t o the goddess o f peace {Bell 7,158), according to Dio Cassius, 66,15.1, 75 A.D. and the latest date was the death o f Vespasian in July 79; see Schiirer 1, 47; CAH 10, 884. "Vita 361; Ap 1,50. " Vita 363; see also H. St. J. Thackeray, op. cit., 27.
8
THE S O U R C E S
w o r k w r i t t e n b y H e r o d ' s friend Nicolaus of Damascus.'* A direct result of this was a one-sided and partisan attitude t o w a r d s this part of the history of the J e w s . Josephus criticizes the Jewish people, for example, for their unruliness and praises the Hellenistic Syrians for their l o y a l t y . " H e c o n d e m n s the H a s m o n a e a n s ' attempts to regain p o w e r and j u d g e s H e r o d I relatively favourably.'* W h a t is also noticeably absent from this part of Josephus' w o r k is the characteristically Jewish rehgious m o t i v a t i o n for the course o f history and the emphasis on divine intervention, an element that occurs frequently in the later part of his w o r k . " All the attempts m a d e b y the J e w s to regain their independence have almost as a m a t t e r o f course to b e interpreted negatively. T h e c o n t i n u o u s narrative thread, h o w e v e r , is abruptly b r o k e n off as soon as this source ceases and the tradition becomes e x t r e m e l y scanty in its presentation.'* Josephus confines himself for the m o s t part to reporting J e w i s h disturbances u n d e r Pilate, the E m p e r o r Caligula and the later procurators, C u m a n u s and F e l i x . " It is only w h e n he is dealing w i t h the p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y prior to the Jewish W a r that his reports b e c o m e m o r e detailed again.2" H e was particularly well suited, as he himself points out, to p r o v i d e an account of the further course of the history of the period. H e had taken part personally in the crucial events as an eyewitness and was famihar w i t h the situation in b o t h camps.^' All the same. " A friend of Herod who is frequently mentioned in The Jewish War and the Antiquities and who dealt in detail with the history of the Jews, writing a Universal History consisting of one hundred and forty-four books; see G. Holscher, 'Josephus', PW 9 (1916), 1945ff.; Schurer, 1, 51; CAH 10, 885. For the general tendency of Nicolaus of Damascus' thought, see A. Schlatter, GI, 241-245. Josephus' entire text in Bell 1,31—2,110 may be simply a detailed excerpt from Nicolaus' work. See B.Z. Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus, Berkeley 1963, 60ff. ind passim. "Bell 1,88.90.94; 2,92; see Holscher, op. cit., 1945. "'Bell l,171fr.357. Even in his assessment of Herod's family difficulties, Nicolaus was usually on Herod's side; see l,432.436f Despite his occasional criticisms of the ruler, see 1,493.533.543, Nicolaus presented his government in a very positive light; see l,429f665. "See, for example. Bell 3,404; 4,323.622; 5,2; 6,288,310. '* It ends with the imposter Alexander; see 2,110. G. Holscher, op. cit., 1949, thought that the source did not end until the banishment of Archelaus, 2,116. "Bell 2,169fr.l84ff.247ff. Bell 2,277ff., from Floras' being appointed to office. " According to Bell 1,3 and Vita 5, Josephus was b o m in the first year of Caligula's reign (13 August 37 to 16 March 38 A.D.); see Holscher, op. cit., 1934. He was therefore twenty-eight years old at the beginning of the war. He stresses the fact that he was an eye-witness most emphatically in his debate with Justus of Tiberias; see Vita 357-367 and Ap 1,46-56 and also his criticism of previous expositions of the Jewish War, Bell l,3ff.6.18; Ap 1,55. According to Ap 1,49, he also had to interrogate those who went over to the other side and was therefore well informed about events in the city.
JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
9
there are certain differences in t h e r e p o r t s o f t h e course o f t h e w a r t h a t give rise to t h e suspicion that J o s e p h u s also at least partly h a d recourse t o w r i t t e n sources.^^ W .
Weber
m a y well h a v e g o n e t o o far in his
hypothesis that Josephus m a y h a v e m a d e use o f an already existing Flavian historical w o r k , ^ ' b u t w e are fully justified in supposing t h a t he m i g h t have resorted t o h i t h e r t o u n p u b l i s h e d w a r r e p o r t s m a d e b y R o m a n imperatores, since these w e r e , o n his o w n admission, k n o w n t o him.^* Even A g r i p p a I I seems t o h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d m a t e r i a l . " A special p r o b l e m is raised b y t h e great differences b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' reports a b o u t his activity in GaUlee in t h e second b o o k o f The Jewish
War
and in his Li/e.^' V e r y d i v e r g e n t o p i n i o n s h a v e b e e n expressed a b o u t t h e value as a source o f this Vita, w h i c h w a s , t o j u d g e f r o m its style, w r i t t e n b y Josephus h i m s e l f " S i n c e t h e appearance o f R . L a q u e u r ' s
study,
h o w e v e r , t h e r e has been a g r o w i n g c o n v i c t i o n t h a t Josephus c o m e s closer t o t h e historical t r u t h in his Vita t h a n he does in t h e parallel account in The Jewish
War?* T h e Vita p r e s u m a b l y goes b a c k t o n o t e s
"Schiirer, 1, 47, beheved that Josephus obtained most of his material in note form during the war. W . Weber, op. cit., 68ff.,79ff etc., and H. Drexlcr, 'Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte desjiidischen Aufstandes', Klio 19 (1925), 277ff., have, however, both pointed to the difference between Josephus' usual style and that of the 'Roman passages, which, in contrast to the usual style, are 'terse, matter-of-fact and translucent'; see Drexler, op. cit., 292, n. 2; see also 304. A striking feature is the presence of precise times and places. "op. cit., 78ff. etc. This work included, according to Weber, almost all the material contained in 3,1-7,162. For a criticism of Weber's hypothesis, see R . Laqueur, Philologische Wochenschrift 41 (1921), 1105ff., and Thackeray, op. cit., 37. Josephus' negative judgement of his predecessors' work. Bell l,lff., and the difficulty in establishing a time — the Flavian work, the Aramaic and the Greek Polemos must have been written between 75 and 79 A.D. — make Weber's supposition very unhkely. Titus' interest in Josephus' work would also be incomprehensible in the case of mere plagiarism; see Vita 363. »Vita 342.358; Ap 1,56. " He points out in a letter cited in Vita 366 that he had hitherto unknown facts to communicate to him. The date of the composition of the Vita is disputed and is dependent on the date of the death of Agrippa II, that is, 93/94 or 100 A.D. G. Holscher, op. cit., 1941f, supposed, on the basis of Ant 20,265, that the earlier date was more likely, but at the same time assumed that the Vita was directly linked, in an earlier version, to the Antiquities and was not extended to form an apology against Justus of Tiberias until later. See R . Laqueur. Derjudische Historiker FlauiusJosephus, 1920,2ff.; A. Schlatter, GI, 342f; M. Gelzer, 'Die Vita des Josephus', Hermes 80 (1952), 67ff.; T. Frankfort, RBPH 39 (1961), 52ff., favours the dates: 92/4 the death of Agrippa II; 93-4 Antiquities; 93/6 Vita. " Schiirer, 1, 58: 'his weakest achievement is the'Life"; G. Holscher, op. cit.. 1994; N . Bentv/kh, Josephus, 1926, 74; H. Drexler, op. cit., 303. " R . Laqueur, op. cit.. Foreword and Part 1. Laqueur's thesis, that the Vita is basically a report by Josephus about his activities in Galilee in opposition to the Synhedrium, goes
10
THE S O U R C E S
m a d e earlier and used later b y the a u t h o r as a basis for his criticism of the attacks m a d e b y Justus of Tiberias.^'. T h e most striking difference, h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n the Vita and The Jewish War is to be found in the author's report o f his mission to Galilee. In the Vita, he describes himself simply as a m e m b e r of a legation, whereas in The Jewish War he presents himself as a m a n w i t h all the p o w e r s of a supreme c o m m a n d e r . It is all t o o obvious that he w a n t e d to attribute military rank and glory to h i m s e l f " T h e Vita is m o r e o v e r particularly i m p o r t a n t because of the insight that it provides into the structure of rural and small t o w n Hfe in Galilee at the b e g i n n i n g of the Jewish W a r and the relatively clear picture that it gives o f the social relationships and compUcated party struggles outside Jerusalem. T h e fundamental orientation of Josephus' w o r k should b y n o w be apparent from w h a t I h a v e said a b o u t the author's personahty and The Jewish War. H e w r o t e the w o r k u n d e r the protection of the Emperors Vespasian and Titus and h e m a y even have been commissioned by t h e m to w r i t e it w i t h a specific intention, that o f convincing readers that the defeat of the J e w s was justified and that the p o w e r of R o m e was invincible.^' This intention had a rehgious significance for J o s e p h u s , " w h o was convinced that G o d himself had ordained the downfall of Jerusalem and the T e m p l e , because of the sins that had been c o m m i t t e d in it — particularly b y the Z e a l o t s . ' ' This is clear from his a d m o n i t i o n of his compatriots: too far; see R . Helm's detailed criticism in the Philologische IVochenschrifi 41 (1921), 481 493 and 505-516. Only R . Eisler, 1, xxxviiif,233 and passim, accepted Laqueur's hypothesis uncritically, finding in it confirmation of his own even more imaginative combinations. " See W . Weber, op. cit., 99; M. Gelzer, op. cit., 87f These notes are probably older than The Jewish War and may have been taken during the siege of Jerusalem or while Josephus was in prison. ™ M. Gelzer, op. cit., 90: 'It was more advantageous for him personally to disseminate a heroic image of himself and so the leader of the partisans reluctantly exaggerated his status to that of regular army commander.' ^' Bell 3,108: 'I have not described this^vent in order to praise the Romans, but rather to comfort those who have been subjected and to restrain those who are seeking rebellion'. This text follows a detailed description of the R o m a n military apparatus. This applied, of course, first and foremost to the Aramaic-speaking East, which was always in a state of unrest, and also to the Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora in the Empire itself, which was also in a state of ferment after the war; see Bell 7,407-453. " This was emphasized by Weber, op cit., 66 and 77: 'As a historian,Josephus clothed himself in the garment of a prophet' and he did so, what is more, in conscious contrast to the image of the Jewish Zealot prophet; see below, p.241f He made speeches admonishing those whose hearts were hardened {Bell 5,393):fe(ifeT6V TiapaKaXoCvra Jtpdq acoTTipiov 6nd? pXaaprinEiTe, see 6,96; and lamented the state of the city (5,19f; see also 1,12). "Bell 2,539; 5,60.3681?.; 6,4.39f299.
JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
11
'I believe therefore that the Deity has fled from his Sanctuary and is on the side of those against whom you are fighting!''"' Vespasian and Titus, o n the other h a n d , had been chosen b y G o d to chastise his people and t o a n n o u n c e the future k i n g d o m of p e a c e . " A t the same time, h o w e v e r , Josephus also defended his people, w i t h w h o s e reUgious faith and destiny h e was so intimately linked, b y attributing the great misfortune to n o m o r e than a small m i n o r i t y of fanatical reprobates and b y exonerating the great mass of the people as their passive v i c t i m s . " O n the o n e hand, then, his literary w o r k was an accusation of the criminal authors of a war, n a m e l y the m e m b e r s o f the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , w h o w e r e in his o p i n i o n entirely responsible for the downfall of the city and the sanctuary. O n the other hand, it was a defence of the noble R o m a n Titus, w h o h a d m a d e every a t t e m p t to prevent the terrible w o r k of destruction. Josephus outlined his entire p r o g r a m m e in the I n t r o d u c t i o n to The Jewish War: T h e fact that internal disorders destroyed it and that the tyrants of the Jews forced the Romans to hurl the firebrand against the Temple — its destroyer, the Emperor Titus, bears witness to this. Throughout the whole of the war he was moved by sympathy for the people terrorized by the rebels and again and again he decided to postpone taking the city by storm in order to give the guilty men time to be converted during the siege. If, however, anyone should criticize us for the accusation that I have brought against the pack of robbers while bemoaning the misfortune that has befallen the fatherland, then he should take my pain into account as an apology for this offence against the law of historiography'." T h e hated o p p o n e n t s of the R o m a n rule b e c a m e the dark b a c k g r o u n d against which the y o u n g h e r o , Titus, shone even brighter.'* Josephus could certainly be sure of w i n n i n g his imperial patron's favour w i t h this u n a m b i g u o u s political emphasis w i t h its rehgious overtones; T i t u s ' signature, w h i c h I have already m e n t i o n e d , the consent o f A g r i p p a II and Josephus' o w n material success all confirm that this was in fact the case."
"Be// 5,412; see also 6,300 and Ezek lO.lSf; 11.22f " Bell 3,6.401; 4,622; 5,2.367. Josephus draws a dear parallel in his great admonitory address. Bell 5,362-419, with Jeremiah and Nebuchadnezzar (390fr.411). '"Bell 2,445.449.525.529.538.540; 5,28.53.265.333f; see also Ant 20,166.172. "Bell 1,1 Of; see also 5,15-20. W.Weber, op. cit., 215: 'It is reasonable to suppose that Josephus, hating his enemies and courting Titus, painted dark portraits of those opponents in order that the shining hero might radiate all the more'. " Vita 363-366; Ap l,50f; see also above, nn. 5 and 6.
12
THE S O U R C E S
His Antiquities of the Jews ('Iou5aiKf| dipxaioXoyia) are also a particularly i m p o r t a n t source of information about the early history of the Zealot m o v e m e n t d u r i n g the reign of H e r o d I and its d e v e l o p m e n t under the procurators. This is above all because the w o r k is even m o r e detailed in its presentation of Jewish history until the o u t b r e a k of the Jewish W a r . It was c o m p l e t e d in 9 3 / 9 4 A.D."*" and was dedicated n o t to the E m p e r o r , b u t , hke the Vita and Contra Apionem, to Epaphroditus, one of Josephus' patrons."". Josephus was at that time n o longer so closely associated w i t h the imperial house as he had been d u r i n g the t i m e of Vespasian and Titus. T h e Antiquities are therefore less politically orientated and have a stronger religious and ethical intention. Josephus clearly wanted to e n h g h t e n cultured R o m a n and Hellenistic readers about the history and faith of the J e w s and to obtain recognition for the despised Jewish people.'*^ This m e a n t that the emphasis in the Antiquities was fundamentally different from that in The Jewish War. In its o u t w a r d form, the w o r k is patterned after a Hellenistic model.**' W i t h the aim of m a k i n g w h a t he says m o r e credible, the a u t h o r frequently mentions the sources o n w h i c h he has d r a w n and cites a large n u m b e r of early authors.** T h e p r o b l e m of the sources o n w h i c h the Antiquities are based is m u c h m o r e c o m p l e x than it is in The Jewish War. In addition to Nicolaus of Damascus, Josephus certainly also draws o n the first b o o k of the Maccabees and p r o b a b l y also o n Strabo.*' H e also makes use of certain individual Jewish legends, some of w h i c h can be found in the T a l m u d i c literature.** O n e striking characteristic of his treatment of the history of Ant 20,267: in the thirteenth year of Domitian's reign. Ant 1,84; see R. Laqueur, op. cit., 23-36; H. St J. Thackeray, op. cit., 53. " Ant 1,5 and 15: 'I exhort the one into whose hands these books come to turn his mind to God and to verify whether our lawgiver has correctly grasped the nature of God and has ascribed to him only those deeds that are worthy of his power'; 16,175: 'I mention these things again and again in order to make foreign people acquainted with our institutions and to eradicate from the minds of unreasonable men the deep causes of hatred against us and our veneration of God'. •"Josephus followed the'PtonaiKi?) dpxatpXoyta of Dionysius of Hahcamassus, which, like Josephus' own Antiquities, is also divided into twenty books; see Schiirer 1, 48f See the arrangement in G. Holscher, op. cit., 1964f Josephus only read a fairly small number of authors in the original languages, of course, and took the other quotations from his own sources. •"Strabo is cited most frequently — as many as twelve times in Books 12-15. His historical work, which can be regarded as friendly towards the Jews, goes back to about 30 B.C. Nicolaus of Damascus, on the other hand, is only quoted seven times in Books 12-16. '"Ant 13,282f = Sot 33a parr.; 13,288-298 = Kidd 66a; 14,22flr. = Taan 3,9ff.; 15,245 = Taan 23a etc. See Derenbourg, 74-150; G. Holscher, op. cit., 1973f
JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
13
H e r o d is that he frequently i n c o r p o r a t e s sharp criticism i n t o t h e t e x t — s o m e t h i n g that he did n o t d o in The Jewish
War. It is o f course possible
that he had a particular source o f J e w i s h origin that was hostile t o H e r o d at his disposal in the case o f t h e Antiquities.*'' In a d d i t i o n t h e r e w e r e also d o c u m e n t s f r o m R o m a n archives, w h i c h a b o v e all d r e w a t t e n t i o n t o t h e J e w s ' free practice o f their religion in earher times.*' Finally, as the son o f a priest, Josephus laid great emphasis o n the history o f t h e h i g h priests and here t o o he p r o b a b l y relied o n w r i t t e n evidence.*' Because o f t h e n u m b e r o f sources, t h e Antiquities
m a k e a less unified
and h o m o g e n e o u s impression t h a n the Bellum and stylistically t h e w o r k cannot be c o m p a r e d w i t h The Jewish
War, especially as far as t h e last
b o o k s are concerned.'" A certain negligence in t h e style and c o n t e n t led L a q u e u r t o suspect t h a t m u c h o f the text o f t h e Antiquities copied or paraphrased f r o m The Jewish
was simply
War, a n d also that t h e f o r m e r
had been r e w r i t t e n a n d extensively revised b y t h e a u t h o r . ' ' J o s e p h u s h a d a far greater n u m b e r o f anecdotal reports at his disposal for t h e p e r i o d o f the p r o c u r a t o r s t h a n he h a d w h e n he w a s c o m p i U n g The Jewish
War.
T h e y w e r e for the m o s t p a r t reports o f disturbances in J u d a e a , t h e fate o f
"Schurer, 1, 51; CAH 10, 886. G. Holscher, op. cit., 1971ff., suspected that 'a tendentious corrector or out-and-out falsifier' combined Nicolaus' work and a biography of Herod, which may have been derived from Ptolemaeus of Ascalon (see 1981) and adapted it in a Jewish and anti-Herodian sense; see also W . Otto, Herodes I, 1 I f This construction is, however, very unlikely. T h e term 'falsifier' can most fittingly be applied to Josephus himself R . Laqueur, op. cit., 218, and H. St. J. Thackeray, op. cit., 67, attribute the anti-Herodian passages (16,150ff,183ff,395 etc.) to Josephus himself Laqueur rightly assumes that Josephus was at this time coming close to the Jewish national point of view. •"Schiirer, 1, 51f; H. St. J. Thackeray, op. cit., 70ff.; R . Laqueur, op. cit., 221-230. * M p 1,31; see also Schiirer, 1, 51f G. Holscher, op. cit., thought that both the documents and the list of high-priests went back to the conjectural Jewish historical work; see also G. Holscher, 'Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie', SAH 30 (1939/40), Iff. ™ For this, see especially H. St. J. Thackeray, op. cit., 105-124. According to Ant 1,7ff., Josephus wanted to abandon the work. He frequently changed his Greek styUsts. As in the Vita, Book X X was written by the author himself " op. cit., 128-215 and especially 198ff. R . Eisler, 1,108f, has shown that parts of the Antiquities can be compressed to half the length without any loss of meaning. See, however, G. Holscher, op. cit., 1988, and Schiirer's answer, 1, 52, n. 19, to a similar suggestion made by B. Niese, HZ 76 (1896), 218fF.: 'One of the sources more liberally used in the Archaeology (presumably Nicolaus of Damascus) is also at the basis of the shorter version of the Bellum Judaicum'. The hypothesis that Josephus reworked the Antiquities is closely connected with the problem of "the events of my hfe", mentioned by him at the end of his work (Ant 20,266). It is however very questionable whether this theory holds to the extent assumed by R . Laqueur, op. cit.. Foreword, 79,91, n. 3,234ff. and passim and R . Eisler, 1, 97f ,233f ,526, n. 4 and passim.
14
THE S O U R C E S
the Herodians and events concerning the T e m p l e and its cult. E. N o r d e n " pointed o u t that Josephus m a d e use of a fixed plan of composition in his e n u m e r a t i o n of the disturbances and that similar plans w e r e used b y the R o m a n annalists. It is n o t at all easy to determine the origin of these anecdotes individually. It is possible that Josephus had p r o c u r a t o r s ' reports and similar d o c u m e n t a r y material at his disposal in R o m e . " It is also possible that A g r i p p a II and the w h o l e Herodian family connection m a y have been a source of information.'* Finally, w e m a y also assume that personal recollections and oral reports served as sources for the events in the period following Felix." A distinctive aspect of the Antiquities is that, because of the author's greater distance from the imperial house and the pro-Jewish apologetical tendency of the later w o r k , the question of fidehty to the law is m o r e strongly emphasized in it than in The Jewish War.^'' Despite this, h o w e v e r , the author's j u d g e m e n t of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , the origin and d e v e l o p m e n t of w h i c h he describes in even greater detail in the Antiquities,^'' remained u n c h a n g e d . H e j u d g e s it just as harshly as before and declares just as firmly that the terrible disaster that caused confusion, distress, misery and rebellion in the w h o l e of Judaea and ultimately led to the complete destruction of the Jewish state was caused by the founders of the 'fourth philosophy'.'* O n the other hand, h o w e v e r , he also stresses m o r e strongly in this later w o r k that the R o m a n administration and the procurators Felix, Albinus and Florus in particular w e r e partly responsible for the general d i s o r d e r . " H e even "'Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Christus', NJKA 31 (1913), 643. " This was Eisler's opinion, 1, xxxixf.,26f. etc. E. Norden, op. cit., 642, n. 2, assumed the mediation of a R o m a n annaUst such as Cluvius Rufus; see also G. Holscher, op. cit., 1985. '*Vita 362ff.; Ap 1,51. " G . Holscher, op. cit., 1971-1993, attributed the reports about the period of the procurators to his 'anonymous Jewish author'; see 1974 and above, n. 47. This unknown author was, Holscher believed, essentially responsible for the last three books of the Antiquities. He supported the moderate Jewish point of view, was faithful to the law and was critical of renegades and of the Zealots ahke. According to Holscher, 1992f, he was liberal in his attitude towards Hellenistic culture, the theatre and gladiatoral combats. Holscher describes him as an 'aristocratic priest, full of enthusiasm for the Hasmonaeans and distinguished people in general, opposed to the plebs and full of hatred for the upstart Herod'; see 1982f But surely his description can best be applied to Josephus himself! " S e e Ant 16,186f; 19,329fr.; 20,100.143f218 and passim; see also, however, the positive assessment of the apostate Tiberius Alexander, Bell 5,45ff. " S e e Ant 18,4-9.23fr. and Bell 2,118; see also Ant 20,5.102.160ff. etc. ' M « r 18,25; 20,252-258. " Ant 20,162fr., which should be compared, however, with Be/;2,256; 20,215.252ff.
JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
15
attributes part of the b l a m e for the later catastrophe to the R o m a n occupying forces.*" T o o high a value should n o t be placed on Josephus as a reliable w r i t e r of history. His reliabihty is above all dependent o n the quaUty o f his sources. H e also often w r o t e hastily and this led h i m simply to o v e r l o o k w r o n g or contradictory statements in his sources.*' Despite the great stress that he placed o n his love of t r u t h and his ability as a historian, he was basically n o t so m u c h a historiographer as a tendentious w r i t e r and apologist. His different writings are all characterized b y firm pohtical or rehgious views.*^ For m y purpose, w h i c h is to investigate the Zealot m o v e m e n t w i t h i n the period delineated above,*' three very i m p o r t a n t conclusions e m e r g e from the description that I h a v e just given of the principal sources and their author, Flavius Josephus. These are: (1) Josephus' source material o n the Zealots was very fragmentary and varied in its origins. This applies in particular to the early period o f the Zealot movement.** (2) Josephus himself was n o t at all interested in m a k i n g the history of the m o v e m e n t , its teachings and the fate of its leaders tally w i t h the facts. His selection of his material was very arbitrary and tendentious. In other w o r d s , whenever it suited his purpose, he exaggerated, altered or suppressed facts and events.*'
"'Ant 19,366; 20,175. " A small collection of obvious contradictions is supplied by R. Eisler, 1,99ff.; see also below, p. 331, n. 102. " For his description of himself, see Bell 1,16; 7,455; Ant 16,187; 20,157: ' W e have the firm intention of teUing only the truth'. N . Bentwich, Josephus, 1926, 106, commented pointedly: 'He was a sophist rather than a sage and circumstances compelled him to be a court chronicler rather than a national historian'. " See above, p. 1. "* See above, pp. 7ff and 12f; see also below, p. 76ff See, for example, the contradictory description ofjohn of Gischala, Bell 2,585ff. and Vita 43if. Examples of typical exaggerations are: Bell 4,382fr.559-565; 5,429fr.562ff.; 6,201 ff. W. Weber, op. cit., 35,43ff., pointed to the suppression of the Zealots' messianic expectation or its re-interpretation by Josephus in favour of Vespasian; see also below, p. 237f, 241; only a few traces of this can be detected in the Antiquities (4,125; 10,210; 17,45). The author's re-interpretation of the name 'Zealots', Bell 4,160f, is also very significant. This situation was very obvious to H. Drexler, Klio 19 (1925), 2 8 7 : ' . . . we learn nothing essential about the ideas and the underlying motivating forces of this radical national and religious movement or the differences beween the individual groups. Josephus saw them simply as criminals and responsible for the downfall of the people'. W. Weber, op. cit., 215, was also aware of it: 'Josephus' tirades about the recklessness of the 'robbers' and 'tyrants' blur the outlines of the whole picture . . . It is only now and then that he mentions the strength of the party or the names of the junior
16
THE S O U R C E S
(3) This came a b o u t as the result of his bitter hostihty t o w a r d s the Jewish freedom movement.** His entire interest was directed towards the task of presenting the Zealots as lawless m e n (Svonoi), criminals for w h o m n o p u n i s h m e n t was t o o severe, or as m a d m e n . " W e are therefore confronted w i t h t w o difficulties. T h e image of the Zealots that w e have from Josephus is n o t only fragmentary — it is also b l u r r e d and distorted. I see it as m y task, then, n o t only to complete Josephus' i m a g e of the Zealots b y d r a w i n g attention to other source material, b u t also to present, at least in certain points, the true features of that controversial m o v e m e n t . Excursus I: The Slavonic Josephus The Old Russian version of The Jewish
War''* contains, among other
things, several remarkable passages concemed with John the Baptist, Jesus and the early Christian community and connecting these with the Jewish freedom movement.*' R . Eisler attempted to prove that the Old Russian translator worked from a Greek version of The Jewish War that went back to the Aramaic original.'" He added 'sources recently disclosed by him' to this foundation." and built up a fantastic picture of the time ofjesus, in which the Baptist, Jesus himself and the early Church were all entirely absorbed into the Zealot movement. Most scholars who examined Eisler's work were very critical of it,'^ but some were prepared to believe in the possible authenticity
leaders...; these, like the leaders themselves, remain mere sketches, when one disregards Josephus' effusions'. '''' See below, p. 4 1 . See also the description in Bell 1,11; see also above, p. 11, n. 37 and the summary in conclusion. Bell 7,253-274: ' W e may even say that they suffered too little for what they did, since there is no just punishment for them' (7,273; see also Bell 4,185). " In his descriptions of them, Josephus preferred such words as djt6voia, dvoia and ^av(a; see Bell 2,265.651; 3,454.479; 4,362; 5,34.121.424.436; 6.20; 7,213.267.412 and passim; Ant 17,263.271; 18,25; Vita 19. The text is La prise de Jerusalem de Joskphe leJuif, Texte vieux-russe, edited by V. Istrin, A. Vaillant and P. Pascal, Paris, 1, 1934, 2, 1938 (cited below as Istrin). Books 1-4 are available in a German translation: Flavius Josephus, Vom jiidischen Kriege, I-IV, nach der Slavischen Vbersetzung deutsch herausgegeben und mit demgriechischen Text verglichen, edited by A. Berendts and K. Grass, Dorpat 1924. These additions had already been considered by A, Berendts, 'Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slawischen de bello judaico', TU, N e w Series 4 (1906). Their value as a source had already been rejected in an important article by E. Schiirer, ThLZiX (1906), 262-266. '"See above, n. 8. " Among other texts, the Hebrew Josippon, the Acts of Pilate and the Toledoth Jeshu; see Index, Vol. 2. " See the critical discussions of his work by W . Bauer, ThLZ 55 (1930), 557-563; H. Levy, DLZ 50 (1930), 491-494; W . Windfuhr, Philologische Wochenschrift 50 (1930), 1421-27; M. Goguel, 'Les theories de M. Robert Eisler', RHPhR 10 (1930), 177-190;
JOSEPHUS AS THE PRINCIPAL S O U R C E
17
of these strange additions in the Slavonic version.'' As far as my own study is concerned, these additional passages have a value as source material in that I am also bound to take the Baptist movement and early Christianity at least partly into account as having Zealot tendencies with political and religious aims. Several scholars have, however, demonstrated quite clearly that Eisler's hypothesis is extremely improbable.''' Analysis has shown the text to be a relatively late hybrid f o r m . " An examination of the omissions and abbreviations has also revealed that these are probably the result of quite arbitrary decisions on the part of the translator." Finally, the text is in many places expanded, but, apart from certain Christian insertions, these extensions are purely literary and stylistic and have no historical validity. The Christian interpolations contain nothing that cannot be traced back to apocryphal themes, the Fathers of the Church, Christian polemics against the Jews or the gospels themselves." The writer simply wanted to entertain his readers in an edifying way. The aim of his presentation as a whole was the glorification of Jesus and his disciples.'* He may perhaps be the same as the
H. Windisch, 'Unser Wissen um Jesus', NeueJahrbiicherfiir Wissenschaft undJugendbildung 7 (1931). 289-307. " S . Reinach, REJ 2,1 (1929), 113-131, and, with certain reservations, R . Laqueur, H Z 148 (1933), 326-328. were of this opinion. Thackeray, who published the additions as an appendix to his edition of TheJewish War, was also inclined to accept Eisler's thesis; see h.h Josephus, the Man and Historian, 1929, 33f,152. More recendy, several other scholars have attempted to justify the historical value of the interpolations as sources. They include S.G.F. Brandon. The Fall ofJerusalem and the Christian Church, 1 9 5 1 , 1 1 0 118; F. Scheidweiler, 'Sind die Interpolationen im altrussischen Josephus wertlos?', ZNW43 (1950/51), 155-178, and O . CuUmann, The State in the New Testament, 5U. '•"The most important are: S. Zeitlin, Josephus on Jesus with Particular Reference to the Slavonic Josephus and the Hebrew Josippon, 1931; J. M. Creed, 'The Slavonic Version of Josephus' History of the Jewish War', HThR 25 (1932), 276-319; J . W . Jack, The Historic Christ, 1933, and E. Bickermann's outstanding study, 'Sur la version vieux-russe de Flavius-Joscphe', Melanges Franz Cumont, 1936, 53-84. N.A. Mescerkij, w h o was the last Russian to study this question in detail, rejected Eisler's thesis completely; see the discussion of his work by S. Szyszman in RdQ 1 (1959). 451-458. " The text corresponds most closely to Niese's group V R . but often reveals influences of PA and L; see Levy, op. cit., 487f; Creed. 2901?.. and Bickermann, 59f " C r e e d , 293ff; Bickermann. 61fr., and others pointed out that the whole important episode of Menahem is omitted, a fact that Eisler was hardly able to explain; see 1. 319f and 2, 556. "Bickermann, 69f,77ff.; Zeitlin. 36-50.106fr. There are. among other things, also connections with the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. The question of the Messiahship of Herod (Istrin. 1, 55) originated with the discussion about the Church Fathers; see Bickermann. 74; Eisler. 1, 348. The sharp attack against the Latins (Istrin. 1, 107f) was caused by the Fourth Crusade and the estabUshment of the Latin Empire. '"J.W. Jack's conjecture, op. cit., 77ff.. is not to be taken seriously; he suggested that a Judaizing Russian sect falsified the text. The so-called Hegesippus. a Latin translation of The Jewish War, made in the fourth or fifth century A.D. with Christian adaptations, also contains a number of interpolations concerning Jesus and the apostles; see ZeitUn, 52.
18
THE SOURCES
translator into Old Russian (in the twelfth or thirteenth century A.D.) and it is also possible that he was a Byzantine chronicler.'' The most recent Russian investigation into the Slavonic text of Josephus also rejects the historical authenticity of the controversial additions. It is significant that, in his concem to safeguard his hypothesis, Eisler dismissed as Christian interpolations all the elements in the Old Russian work that contradicted his own construction. The insertions were able to cause such a sensation because of a strategem, clearly exposed by E. Bickermann, on the part of the Byzantine interpolator, who 'gave the Gospel figures an appearance that seemed new and struck people of our own time as attractive. John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles were all presented as revolutionaries'.*"
B . T H E SECONDARY SOURCES
T h e other source material that can be usefully considered in this context in addition to the w o r k s of Josephus is very varied in origin. It is only possible t o understand its significance and to classify it if its relationship w i t h the data p r o v i d e d b y Josephus is b o r n e in m i n d . I therefore propose to m a k e a distinction b e t w e e n the c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish sources other than the w o r k s of Josephus, the rabbinic material, the Christian sources and the material provided b y other ancient authors. 1. Contemporary Jewish
Sources
T h e great history of the J e w s of Justus of Tiberias, w h i c h was so bitterly attacked b y Josephus and w h o s e a u t h o r Josephus — certainly w r o n g l y — described as the leader of the rebellious party in Tiberias," — is lost. This is very unfortunate, since, if it w e r e still in existence, w e w o u l d p r o b a b l y learn m o r e from it about the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t than from the e x t r e m e l y tendentious Josephus. After their defeat b y the R o m a n s , the Zealots w e r e n o t able, as the victorious Maccabees had been in the past, to develop a historiography of their o w n , w h i c h m i g h t h a v e presented the spirit and the actions of the Jewish
" Bickermann, 81f.; Zeitlin, 36,60; Levy, op. cit., 489ff.; see also H. Fuchs, Dergeistige Widerstandgegen Rom, 1938,73. M. Dibelius, ThBl 6 (1927), 221, had already expressed this opinion. «>op. cit., 79. See Vita 34fF.88 etc.; see also Schiirer, 1, 59f. and H. iMihtr, Josephus und Justus von Tiberias, Halle 1910, 41 ff.
THE S E C O N D A R Y S O U R C E S
19
fight for freedom according to their understanding of it. T h e only text which can be ascribed w i t h some degree of probability to the Jewish rebels and w h i c h has c o m e d o w n to us is a brief collection of Jewish days of r e m e m b r a n c e and c o m m e m o r a t i o n s o f victories k n o w n as the Megillath Taanith or 'Scroll of Fasting'*^. It is, h o w e v e r , so short and its meaning has been so disputed that very little information can be gained from it. T h e Assumption of Moses, w h i c h presumably dates back t o the beginning of the first century A.D.*' and has been regarded b y certain scholars as a Zealot text,** does n o t contain any specifically Zealot aspects, at least in the form in w h i c h it has been h a n d e d d o w n to us. W e cannot therefore b e at all certain that it was p r o d u c e d w i t h i n the Jewish freedom movement.*' It is equally possible to describe it as quietistic and ascribe it to the Pharisees or the Essenes.*' It is, then — w i t h o n e exception — n o t possible to attribute individual works in the rich b o d y of late Jewish Palestinian literature directly to the Zealot m o v e m e n t . T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , m a n y concepts contained in that hterature that are in a special w a y o f significance to the 'Zealots'. A b o v e all, there is the concept o f 'zeal' for the law and the Sanctuary, which includes an unconditional readiness to suffer, p r o p h e t i c enthusiasm, a hatred o f pagan oppression, the idea of a ' H o l y W a r ' and the expectation of a w a r r i o r Messiah and Israel's eventual supremacy over the people of the w o r l d . M a n y late Jewish writings h a v e been
For the text of the Megillath Taanith, see G. Dalman, Aramdische Dialektproben, 1896,1-3 and 32-34. See also H. Lichtenstein, 'Die FastenroUe', HUCA 8/9 (1931/32), 268ff For the dating, see Schurer, 1, 114f; S. Zeithn, Megillal Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Period, 1922, 3f; Lichtenstein, op. cit., 257f, and W . R . Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, 1956, 208f The fact that dates of the Bar Koseba rebellion may also possibly be mentioned does not seriously call this assumption into question, since the later events were simply appended. For this problem, see Farmer, op. cit., 6,15 Iff.,158: 'The purpose of the Megillath Taanith was to inspire the Jews in their resistance to R o m e by reminding them of the Maccabaean victories...'. See also J.Z. Lauterbach, 'Megillat Taanit',J£ 8,427, and S. Zeiriin, op. cit., 4. See also below, p. 203. " F o r the dating, see Schurer, 3, 281f, and O . Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: an Introduction, 1965, 624. For the advocates of the hypothesis that the Assumption of Moses was a Zealot text, see J.W. Lighdy, Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time ofJesus, 1925, 349. In the second German edition of his work, 3,219, Schiirer agreed with this hypothesis, but he opposed it in the third German edition, 3, 300 (cf EngUsh tr. 3, 283f). Schiirer was of this opinion in the third German edition of his work, 3, 300. See also C. Clemen, in Kautzsch, ^ P . 4 T 2, 315; B.-Gr.Rel. 87/88, n. 3. •'S.P. Kiessler, Altjiidisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, 1928,1301; J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, translated into English by W.F. Stinespring, 1955, 325; O . Eissfeldt, op. cit.
20
THE S O U R C E S
b r o u g h t f o r w a r d in evidence in the elaboration of this theory o f ' Z e a l o t ' concepts. T h e y include, for example, b o t h books of the Maccabees, the Ethiopic E n o c h , the B o o k of Jubilees, the Testaments of the T w e l v e Patriarchs, the Psalms of S o l o m o n , the T h i r d and F o u r t h Books of the Maccabees, the A s s u m p t i o n of Moses itself, certain parts of the SybiUine B o o k s , the Apocalypses of Esdras and B a r u c h and the pseudo-Philonic Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Philo's historical and apologetical d o c u m e n t . O n the Embassy to Gaius, must also be taken into consideration here. It completes the picture painted by Josephus and provides an interesting insight into the confrontation between Palestinian Judaism and the claims of the worship of the e m p e r o r . Valuable information can also be found in the Essene literature that has c o m e to light as a result of the discoveries in the region of the Dead Sea. O n e of these scrolls in particular, ' T h e W a r of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness', contains a description of the H o l y W a r at the end of t i m e that is, as far as its content is concerned, in m a n y respects close to the spirit of the Zealot m o v e m e n t . * ' S o m e of the ideas contained in the eschatological and messianic fragments found in Caves I and IV and certain passages from the C o m m u n i t y R u l e and the h y m n s are also n o t unlike the concepts and themes of the Zealots. A n o t h e r source of a very special kind is found in the coins of the first Jewish rebeUion o f 6 6 - 7 0 A.D.** T h e i r inscriptions and illustrations provide us w i t h some of the relatively rare extant pieces of evidence of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t of the first century A . D . Josephus provided a very one-sided and fragmentary picture of the Zealots' religious convictions. It is therefore only b y investigating the c o m p a r a t i v e rehgious material found in Hellenistic and R o m a n Jewish sources that w e can usefully c o m p l e t e the religious picture of the m o v e m e n t . An examination of these sources also reveals a concentration of views in Zealotism that w e r e at the same t i m e quite widespread in Palestinian Judaism as a w h o l e . 2. The Rabbinic
Sources
T h e rabbinic tradition first began to b e c o m m i t t e d to writing towards the end of the second century A . D . and the w h o l e process covered a very l o n g period.*' B y that time, the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t had finally See below for a detailed analysis, p. 277fr. ""L. Kadman, The Coins of the Jewish War o/66-7J, Jerusalem 1960. *' S.H. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 3rd. ed. 1963, 20fr.; G.F. Moore, Judaism, 1, 93ff.
THE S E C O N D A R Y S O U R C E S
21
collapsed. Despite this, h o w e v e r , the rabbinic c o n t r i b u t i o n to o u r k n o w l e d g e of the Zealot m o v e m e n t is u n d o u b t e d l y o u r m o s t i m p o r t a n t source of information apart from the w o r k of Josephus himself. Following the usual forms in the rabbinic tradition, there are n o l e n g t h y connected reports, b u t only scattered mdividual statements or anecdotes in which the 'Zealots' or the Sicarii are mentioned.*" T h e names of the leaders of this m o v e m e n t are also n o t e d . " T h e tradition concerning the 'Zealot' Phinehas is especially interesting, since this is a case o f a Zealot Midrash having been preserved in that tradition and criticized and changed in a later tradition.'^ This state o f affairs is typical o f the attitude of later rabbinism w i t h regard to the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , w h i c h finally collapsed w i t h the defeat o f Bar Koseba's revolt. T h e a t t e m p t to 'hasten' the c o m i n g of the k i n g d o m of G o d b y violent means in a struggle against the w o r l d l y p o w e r of the pagans was c o n d e m n e d as acting purely o n the basis of h u m a n authority.'^ This negative attitude t o w a r d s the struggle of the Jewish people for independence explains w h y there are relatively few historically valuable data a b o u t the Zealot m o v e m e n t in the first century A . D . a m o n g the abundance of rabbinic writings on other themes. T h e events of the recent past w e r e seen from the point of view of suffering rather than as 'history' that had to be j u d g e d positively.'* T h e question of the historical value o f the rabbinic traditions, several of which w e r e concerned in one w a y or another w i t h the Zealot m o v e m e n t , can therefore only be answered in individual cases o n the basis of the age of each tradition and its relationship w i t h other source material. Historical information about the Zealots and their theological views, then, w e r e assimilated into the rabbinic tradition and discussed w i t h i n it. This w o u l d certainly seem to indicate that there was still an active spirit of revolt against R o m a n rule a m o n g the individual teachers o f the earher Tannaitic p e r i o d . ' ' It is even possible that this conflict w i t h Sec below, pp. 50f. and 66f. " See below, pp. 50, n. 212; 349f. and 360f. See Chap. IV B 3, p. 156ff. " S e e below, p. 124. See N . N . Glatzer, Geschichte der talmudischen Zeit, 1 9 3 7 , 1 1 : 'Jewish history writing did not cease because of flagging energy, but because it was recognized that there was no longer any Jewish "history" in the real sense of the word. . . . The Jews were no longer creating history. They were suffering it'. " It is hardly possible to overestimate the effect of the catastrophes that occurred between 70 and 134/35 A.D. on the inner development ofjudaism. The image provided by the later rabbinic authors of the period before the political collapse is one-sided and should be regarded critically.
22
THE S O U R C E S
Zealotism and its transformation or exclusion was one of the essential elements in the d e v e l o p m e n t of rabbinism following the destruction of Jerusalem in 7 0 A . D .
3. The Christian
Sources
T h e r e are traces o f the Zealot m o v e m e n t in the gospels," the Acts of the A p o s t l e s " and the Pauline letters. Paul had a m o r e positive attitude t o w a r d s 'zeal' in Pharisaism before the destruction of Jerusalem than the later rabbinic authors. This fact emerges quite clearly from a n u m b e r of places in his epistles.'* T h e later writers of C h u r c h history such as Eusebius, h o w e v e r , saw the Zealots only as Josephus had seen t h e m and therefore contributed n o t h i n g n e w to the fund of o u r k n o w l e d g e of the m o v e m e n t . " Several valuable pieces of information a b o u t Zealotism are contained, o n the other hand, in H i p p o l y t u s ' description of various Jewish sects in his ' R e f u t a t i o n of all Heresies'. H e obviously regarded the Zealots as a s u b - g r o u p of the Essene m o v e m e n t . " * T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t references to the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t are, of course, particularly interesting because of their closeness in time to the events. H i p p o l y t u s ' brief account is, h o w e v e r , particularly impressive because of his description o f the zeal of the Zealot m o v e m e n t , which is, m o r e o v e r , confirmed b y related T a l m u d i c descriptions.""
4 . Other Ancient
Authors
It is obvious that disturbances in a r e m o t e c o u n t r y such as Palestine w o u l d have had n o m o r e than a marginal effect o n the ancient w o r l d and the aims of the a n t i - R o m a n m o v e m e n t w i t h rebellion in m i n d w e r e n o d o u b t regarded as hardly w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g . It was only w h e n the Jewish W a r itself b r o k e out that attention was d r a w n to the Zealots at least in the eastern part of the R o m a n E m p i r e , since there had n o t been an uprising of an oppressed people in the E m p i r e for several decades. It is also probable that R o m a n historians became interested in this w a r because Vespasian, the c o m m a n d e r of the a r m y that had been sent to suppress the Jewish rebellion, was surprisingly m a d e e m p e r o r and his " S e e below, p. 337ff. " See below, pp. 47 and 78f. '"See below, pp. 177 and 180ff. -> HistEcc 2,20; 3,6f. ™ See below, p. 70ff. See below, pp. 190ff and 197fr.
THE S E C O N D A R Y S O U R C E S
23
son Titus, w h o later succeeded h i m as e m p e r o r , led the a r m y to ultimate victory in the Jewish W a r . This, then, is w h y Tacitus, Suetonius and D i o Cassius barely m e n t i o n the disturbances in Judaea before the o u t b r e a k of war, but deal w i t h the w a r itself in some detail, thus supplementing Josephus' account in a very valuable way.'"^ It is possible that at least part of their source material was derived from the De Judaeis of A n t o n i u s Julianus, w h o was, according to Josephus, the p r o c u r a t o r o f Judaea during the siege of Jerusalem.'"* W e also have a n o t e b y Pliny the Elder, but w e m a y assume that the a u t h o r himself did n o t in fact take part in the siege."" Epictetus mentions the m a r t y r d o m of the 'Galilaeans' and it is likely that this is a reference to the fact that the rebels w e r e c o n d e m n e d to death at the end of the Jewish War.'"* W e m a y therefore conclude that the contribution m a d e b y ancient authors w h o w e r e n o t J e w s is relatively insignificant. '"^ Only Tacitus provides a few data; sec/ltt« 12,54; see also below, p. 348, n. 183. See also his terse statement: 'Duravit tamen patientia ludaeis usque ad Gessium Florum procuratorem', Hist 5,10. ""See Tacitus, Hist 5,10-13; Suetonius, Vesp 6; Tit 3f; Dio Cassius, 66,1.4-7. Belt 6,238; his work is mentioned by Minucius Felix, Oct 33,4; see Schiirer, 1, 33, and especially E. Norden, Neue Jahrbiicher fUr das klassische Altertum 31 (1913), 664flr. See below, p. 335, n. 116. See, for a view that was opposed to earlier opinions. Sir R. Syme, Tacitus. Oxford 1958, 1, 20f, and especially n. 5; see also M. Stern. JRS 52 (1962), 258. "*See below, p. 58f
C H A P T E R II THE V A R I O U S NAMES GIVEN T O THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT T h e m e m b e r s of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t have various names in Josephus' w o r k and these also occur at least to some extent in other sources. Each of these names has a definite content and a clear historical b a c k g r o u n d and each characterizes the freedom m o v e m e n t in a different way.
A. T H E ' R O B B E R S '
(XTjaxai)
T h e c o m m o n e s t t e r m in Josephus for the m e m b e r s of the m o v e m e n t is XriCTtiiq, a l t h o u g h XTIOTIKOI also occurs.' T h e w o r d Xuaxfiq is usually translated as ' r o b b e r ' , b u t , as I shall s h o w further on, the concept has a w i d e r m e a n i n g in Josephus' w o r k than o u r w o r d ' r o b b e r ' . T h e author did n o t simply h a p p e n to use it b y chance. If w e are to understand its m e a n i n g , w e have first of all to e x a m i n e the general significance of w h a t hes b e h i n d the t e r m . The Ancient Linguistic
Usage
A.r|OTf|(; is a classical Greek w o r d derived from XT\iq, b o o t y , or A.TiiConai, to seize as booty.^ It is s y n o n y m o u s w i t h fipna^, although this has the m e a n i n g m o r e of a r o b b e r of another's p r o p e r t y , while X,x|CTTf|q is rather a criminal, often a r m e d and violent.^ It frequently occurs w i t h the m e a n i n g of 'pirate', especially in the context of the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean.* In addition, it is also used of irregular soldiers w o r k i n g in bands in search of b o o t y . ' . T h e Latin w o r d latro corresponds exactly
' For Josephus' linguistic usage, see below, p. 41 ff. ^ See H.G. Liddell and R . Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th. ed. Oxford 1940, 1046. (Cited below as Liddell-Scott.) ' There is a similar relationship between the corresponding terms latro and rapax in Latin and O'PP'''? and ]Vtl in Talmudic Hebrew; see below, p. 34ff. * See Liddell-Scott, op. cit. ' F . Passow, Handworterbuch der griechischen Sprache, Sth. ed. 1841ff., 11,1, 54: 'Also bands that are not waging regular war, but are making incursions into enemy territory and then withdrawing according to circumstance'. See, for example. Sir 36.31 ( = LXX/Vs 26).
THE R O B B E R S
25
to the Greek Xxi^xfiq.*' B o t h w o r d s w e r e used by ancient authors, together w i t h the related abstract n o u n s XTjaTsia and latrocinium, for the most part w h e n they w e r e discussing the widespread p h e n o m e n o n of disorder caused by robbers. T h e w o r d s w e r e also legal technical terms. Excursus II: The Scourge of Robbers in the Ancient World (a) In the R o m a n
Empire'
The parts of the Empire that suffered most from robbers were the frontier provinces and territories. These provided favourable hiding-places for robbers because of their geographical situation. There were also individual tribes and groups within the Empire that were particularly inclined to robbery or Xtiaxeia. In Egypt, for example, the Bucoh, who were cowherds in the swamps of the Nile Delta, had been feared for centuries.' They had been mentioned as early as the third century B.C. by Erastosthenes, but they were not annihilated until after their dangerous revolt under Marcus Aurelius.' According to the various papyri of the second and third centuries A.D., inhabitants of Egyptian villages were obliged to support the police as so-called A.i]aTOJtvaoTai. If they refused to do so, they could expect to be punished severely.'" The scourge of robbers was also never completely eliminated in Asia Minor. The Pamphylians had a bad reputation as robbers" and Augustus had to wage regular war against the neighbouring Isaurians, who had
' Varro, LingLat 7,52, derives it from the Greek XdtpK;, a hired servant or mercenary; see Forcellinus, Lexicon totius Latinitatis, 1831ff., 2, 673f, and T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, 1899, 629, n. 4. In contrast to the term latro, there is also a word grassator, which means an individual unarmed footpad. The two meanings, however, overlap. See I. Opelt, Die lateinischen Schimpfwdrter, Heidelberg 1965, Index, under the word grassator. ' See L. Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners in the Early Empire, 1928, 1, 294-299; Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines. III, 2, 991f, article latrocinium, written by G. Humbert (C. Lecrivain); O . Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften, 1913, Die Sicherheitspolizei im romischen Kaiserreich, 576-612, especially 593ff.; R . MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, 1966, 60fr. 'Strabo 17,1.6 (792); 17,1.19 (802). ' The revolt began with the murder of two R o m a n tax-collectors, one of w h o m seems to have been sacrificed and eaten. Some sections of the population of Egypt joined the rebels and these threatened Alexandria. Avidius Orosius, the emperor's commissioner for the East, did not venture to engage in pitched battle with them 'because of their desperate anger and ferocity'. He was eventually victorious, but only because of their own disunity; see Dio Cassius 71,4; ScriptHistAugMarcAurel 2 1 . See also HeUodorus, Aethiopica, passim, but especially 6,2-12. There are obvious parallels with the Jewish freedom movement. '"See O. Hirschfeld, op. cit., 613f, and T. Mommsen, op. cit., 307, n. 1. A similar situation seems to have existed, at least according to Bell 2,229 ( = Ant 20,114), in Palestine. "Strabo 12,7.2 (570).
26
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
terrified Asia Minor for centuries and continued to do so until the Byzantine period, in an attempt to check their banditry.'^ Apuleius paints a vivid picture in his Metamorphoses of the uncertainty in Greece generally and Thessaly in particular, where the main reason for the bad situation was the presence of too few troops. There was also a continuous change of governors in these senatorial provinces." Paul's KIV8UVOI? XtlCTtrnv may have been due to his experiences while travelling in Asia Minor and Greece.'" The interminable difficulties involved in combatting robbers are clear from the example of Sardinia, where they caused such extensive public nuisance that great areas of fertile land remained uncultivated." Cicero speaks of 'robbers clothed in sheepskins' with whom the propraetor there, supported by a cohort of the Auxilia, had to struggle.'* During the reign of Augustus, the disorders became a formal rebellion and, from 6 A.D. onwards, a regular war had to be waged against the rebels." In 19 A.D., Tiberius sent four thousand released men, who had been contaminated by Jewish and Egyptian 'superstitions' and had been pressed into armed service, to Sardinia 'in order to fight the robbers there'.'* There are obvious parallels here with the situation in Palestine. Similar situations must also have existed in certain parts of Spain." At the time of the republic, the R o m a n authorities were constantly waging 'robber wars' there, although it is difficult to distinguish between half-subjected tribes revolting and real robbers. According to Appian, a 'band of robbers' consisting of ten thousand men gave the Romans a great deal of trouble. Both leaders had R o m a n names and may have been soldiers at one time.^" Appian says of the Spanish robbers that 'the robbers were in such good spirits that none of the prisoners would endure slavery. Some of them committed suicide, while others killed those who sold them. Some sank the ships that took them away'.^' 'MDio Cassius 55,28.3: 'laaupoi xe ydp 4K XijaTeiac; dp^dnevoi Koi tic, JtoXenou SsivoTTixa ;tpoaTix9T|CTav. The same could have been said o f the Jews at the beginning of the Jewish War. Sec CAH 10, 261,270ff. During the reign of Claudius, the CiHcian hill people, the Cieti, overran the fertile coastal regions of the province; see Tacitus, Ann 12,55; see also CAH 10, 682. " S e e Hirschfeld, op. cit. 594; see also Apuleius, Met 2,18.3: 'Passim trucidatos per medias plateas vidcbis iacere, nec praesidis auxilia longinqua levare civitatem tanta clade possunt'. For the inadequate military occupation of this province, see Bell 2,366,368. '^2 Cor 11.26. " V a r r o , ReRust 1,16.2: 'Multos enim agros egregios colere non expedit propter latrocinia vicinorum: ut in Sardinia quosdam . . . ' See also Josephus, Bell 2,279 and Ant 20,256. ProvCons 7: 'Res in Sardinia cum mastrucatis latrunculis a propraetore una cohorta auxiharia gcsta'. " D i o Cassius 55,28.1. '"Tacitus, Ann 2,85: 'Coercendis illic latrociniis'; cf. Suetonius, Tib 36. " V a r r o , op. cit.: 'ut in Hispania prope Lusitaniam'. HistRom (Hispania) 6,68. " op. cit., 6,77; sec also the heroic suicide of Jewish rebels, below p. 262.
THE R O B B E R S
27
Augustus placed on the head of the Spanish robber Korokotta a reward of 250000 drachmae, but when the latter submitted voluntarily, he went unpunished and received the reward himself.Impressive evidence of the activity of these robber bands is found in the inscriptions on the tombs of their victims.^' Robbers also caused considerable public nuisance even in Italy, where they seem to have been very widespread.^'* There is general agreement among many Roman authors writing between Augustus and Domitian that travelling in Italy itself was extremely d a n g e r o u s . T h e situation there was particularly bad at the end of the civil war, at the beginning of Octavian's r e i g n . O c t a v i a n was energetic in his attempts to control the disorder caused by robbers" and Tiberius and Claudius continued the work that he had begun. (b) In Syria and Palestine The position with regard to 'robbers' was no better in Syria and Palestine than in the Roman provinces discussed above. Even in the Old Testament, there are signs that social deprivation led to soldiers of fortune recruiting dissatisfied men without possessions into their bands and waging private wars with t h e m . " The best example of this kind of leadership is provided by David. After he had been rejected by the king, he assembled a group of volunteers without roots in society around him-"" and retired with them into the Judaean desert, where they lived in caves. What is particularly striking. " D i o Cassius 56,43.3. Josephus refers to a similar case of self-surrender against a promise of life or freedom; see Bell 2,64 {Ant 17,284) and Bell 2,253 (Ant 20,161). See also below, p. 328, n. 9 1 ; p. 350, n. 193. " In Spain: CILII, 2 9 6 8 ' . . . eques f(iHus) annorum X X a latronibus occisus'; 3 4 7 9 ' . . . caeditu)r infesto concursu forte latronum'; in Dacia: CIL 111,1, 1559,1585; in Dalmatia: CIL 111,1, 2399,2544. " S e e the detailed survey of the situation there in Friedlander, op. cit., 1, 294-299. ' 5 Horace, Epist 1,2.32; Seneca, Dial 3,16.1; 5,43.3; 6,20.5: 'locata pubhce latrocinia'; Benef 1,10.5; 2,18.6, etc.; Epist 14,9: only the poor man could be safe, 'nudum latro transmittit'; Juvenal, Sat 10,22: 'cantabit vacuus coram latrone viator'. Epictetus, Diss 3,13.3, is similar. See also Juvenal's impressive descriptions. Sat 3,305-307, and those by Martial, Epigr 14,20, and Pliny the Younger, Epist 6,25. "Appian, BellCiv 5,132. "Suetonius, Aug 32,1: 'Igitur grassaturas dispositis per opportuna loca stationibus inhibuit'. Suetonius, Tib 37,1: 'Imprimis tuendae pads a grassaturis ac latrociniis seditionumque licentia curam habuit'. The three wordsgrassatura, latrocinium and seditio clearly represent three stages in intensity; see Claudius 25,2; see also Seneca, Clem 2,1.1. At a later period, the unsuccessful struggle conducted by the emperor, Septimius Severus, against the robber captain Felix Bulla is particularly relevant; see Dio Cassius, 71,10.6: 'Severus was furious because he won wars in Britain, but was defeated by a robber in Italy'. " S e e Judges 9.4 (Abimelech); 11.3 Qephthah) and 1 Kings 11.24 (Eliada). ^"David's troops went out, according to 2 Sam 3.22, on expeditions (as robbers). For the composition of this troop, see 1 Sam 22.2 and, for the territory where it operated, 1 Sam 27.Iff.; 23.14; 24.1 etc.
28
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
however, is that this very 'worldly' phenomenon could be given a religious interpretation by the Old Testament author, according to whom Abigail said to David: 'My lord is fighting the battles of the Lord'." During the later period of the monarchy, peasant farmers were empovcrished by debt because the land became increasingly the property of a few rich owners.'^ This led to a sharp decline in society and the formation of many bands of robbers.'' The revolt of the Maccabees also took the form, at least in its initial stages and after Judas' death, of a war waged by bandits. It also, however, in its first part at least, bore the imprint of a war of faith and I shall be discussing this aspect of it later.''' With the collapse of the Seleucid Empire towards the end of the first century B.C., the country fell to a great extent into the hands of Arabian and Iturean tribes.'' These had since time immemorial regarded it as their special privilege to plunder caravans." Pompey's troops occupied Syria partly at least with the aim of putting an end to this activity." Jews had also taken part in the formation of small 'robber states'. Their Mediterranean port of Joppa became a pirates' den, making the whole of the eastern Mediterranean unsafe.'* The tranquillity that the Romans had hoped to bring about with their occupation did not materialize. Even if the 'robber captain' Hezekiah and his followers were really members of the Jewish freedom movement and should therefore not be regarded as 'robbers'," such men were undoubtedly present in Trachonitis and Josephus called them also Xiiaxai, although they hardly had anything to do with the later Zealots. The rugged territory of Trachoniris was quite unsuitable for agriculture, but its network of caves provided many safe hiding-places. The inhabitants were for the most part shepherds,*" but " 1 Sam 25.28. " S e e Amos 2.6ff.; 4. If; 5.1 If; 6.3fr.; 8.4-6; Is 3.14f; 5.8 etc. " See Hos 7.5 and 6.9. " S e c below, p. 149. " T , Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, 14th. ed. 1933, 3, 139ff.;M. Rostovtzeff, Soda/ and Economic History of the Hellenistic World 1941, 2, 841f,868; see also Strabo 16,2,18.20 (755f.).28 (759). 5" See Gen 16.12; 1 Sam 30. Iff.; 2 Chron 22.1; Job 1.15ff. Individual tribes of Israel seem also to have plundered caravans during the early period; see Gen 49.17,19,27; Deut 33.22. " Sec Justinus (Pompcius Trogus) 40,2.4: 'ne rursus Syriam ludaeorum et Arabum latrociniis infcstam reddat'. Sec also the Prologue to Book 39. The 'petty tyrants' mentioned in Ant 14,38-40 and Strabo 16,2,10.18 (752.755) are no more than leaders of such robber bands who were able to acquire a degree of power because of the general state of anarchy. Pompeius had some of them condemned to death; see Ant 14,39; Strabo 16,2.18 (755). See Ant 14,43; see also Strabo 16,2.28 (759). A tomb in Jerusalem during the reign of Alexander Jannacus shows a naval galley pursuing a ship. Her captain is standing at the prow with his bow drawn; see lEJ 6 (1956), 127f; L.Y. Rahmani and others, 'The T o m b of Jason', Atiqot 4 (1964). At the beginning of the Jewish War, the Jews in Joppa became pirates once again; see Bell 3,415f
" S e e below, p. 313fr. *" Ant 15,346; 16,272. In Jerusalem, shepherds were always suspected of being robbers; see Bill. 3, 114.
THE R O B B E R S
29
most of their income came from the raids that they made on caravans on their way to Damascus. The rulers of this part of Syria left them undisturbed on condition that they made over part of their gains. Herod, who was given this territory by Augustus, found it difficult to control these bands of robbers, since they were protected and supported by the king of the Nabataeans. The disorder that they caused did not come to an end until three thousand Idumaeans and five hundred Jewish cavalrymen from Babylonia cleared out the robbers' dens and settled in the district.'" Despite this, however, there is a later inscription which probably refers to the expulsion of robbers living 'like animals' in caves in the district either by Agrippa I or by Agrippa II.''^ People of rank travelling in eastern Jordania had to be given a military escort.'" Even the Essenes were armed against possible attacks when they travelled"** and there is confirmation in the New Testament of this general lack of safety. It is, however, often difficult to decide whether those who are called Xnmai in the texts were Zealots or whether they were simply ordinary robbers or highwaymen. The robbers in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan are certainly ordinary highwaymen and there is no reason to go further in search of a more subtle interpretation of the text."" The two words used in the image of the good shepherd in the fourth gospel, XijCTTai K O I KXeTtiai would suggest that there is no direct relationship here with Josephus' XI]CTTai. The robber was also a favourite figure in parables in the rabbinic literature.*' The occurrence of the Xqaxai in the gospel accounts of Christ's passion seems, on the other hand, to point to a connection with the Zealots.*' Even after the collapse of the Jewish struggle for freedom, the country continued to be troubled by robbers. Achilles Tatius, for example, speaks of robbers at large in the coastal zone between Gaza and Pelusium.** One Claudius caused great trouble with his mounted band of robbers in the
" Bell 1,399; Ant 15,343-348; 16,281-285; 17,23-28; see also Strabo 16,2.20 (756). According to an inscription, Dittenberger, OGIS 1, 628, N o . 415, one of the Idumaean soldiers stationed in Trachonitis dedicated a column to Herod. '^R. Cognat-Lafayc, Inscriptiones graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, 1223 = Dittenberger, OGIS 1, 634f, No. 424. This inscription is an edict promulgated by Agrippa I o r Agrippa II: [BaaiX.EU(;'AY]pi7t)ta(; (piXoKoiaap [KOI (piXopwJuaiog Uyei [...] 9Tipi68oui; KaTaCTTda6to[(;...] oiK ol8' bnaq N^XPI vuv XaQdvrec, K O I 4VitoXXoii; Tfi.T|CTTai in order to brand the Zealots as lawless rebels and criminals in the R o m a n sense and as m e n w h o in the end received the p u n i s h m e n t that they deserved.'" Seen from this point of view, then, it is e x t r e m e l y unlikely that XriCTxai was ever a w o r d that the Zealots used in its A r a m a i c form to describe t h e m s e l v e s . " ' T h e most that w e can ask in this context is whether it was n o t those m e m b e r s of the Jewish population w h o w e r e hostile towards the Zealots, that is, the p r o p e r t y - o w n i n g u p p e r class, w h o in fact called the freedom fighters 'robbers'. This is certainly a possibility. In any case, Xnaxai was clearly n o t just a special t e r m applied only to the Zealots, b u t , as w e have seen from o u r e x a m i n a t i o n a b o v e o f the rabbinic usage in this respect, it simply m e a n t ' a r m e d robbers'. Identifying the Zealots w i t h a r m e d robbers, then, at once l o w e r e d their status. W e do not, m o r e o v e r , k n o w w h e n the w o r d ^.TICTTTI? entered Palestine as a l o a n - w o r d . It occurs quite frequently in the M i s h n a h , " ' w h i c h means that it must have been k n o w n at the latest until the e n d of the first century A . D . It was possibly assimilated u n d e r the Ptolemies or the Seleucids, w h e n the people w e r e experiencing a strong w a v e o f Hellenization. It hardly needs to be said that the Hellenistic inhabitants of Palestine, the n e i g h b o u r i n g Syrians and the R o m a n officials in Palestine described the Zealots as Xrjaxai. A n e x a m p l e of this can be found in the linguistic usage of Nicolaus of Damascus."* T h e r e are also possible examples of the evangelists calling the Zealots A.T)axai."' Josephus, then, took the w o r d over in the sense in w h i c h it was employed by m e m b e r s of the Jewish u p p e r class and b y the Hellenistic neighbours and gave it a sharp polemical emphasis, strongly influenced
""See Bell 2.265.427: the burning of the archives; see below, pp. 335. 361f H. Kreissig, Die sozialen Zusammenhdnge des jiidischen Krieges, Berlin 1970, does not, unfortunately, go deeply into the meaning of the concept. "'Bell 7,272-274; see also above, p. 11, n. 37. " ' S e e above, p. 35f " ' See above, p. 34f; cf Schurer 2, 73, n. 246. "»See above, p . 4 1 , n . 141. " ' S e e below, p. 339.
46
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
b y his o w n pohtical a t t i t u d e . " " W e can gain n o mformation about the inner nature and m e a n i n g o f the Zealot m o v e m e n t or its principles and aims from the t e r m . T h e most that it can d o is t o t h r o w some h g h t on the external form of the m o v e m e n t and the w a y in w h i c h it conducted its campaigns. N e i t h e r of these aspects are typical of the Zealot m o v e m e n t as such, but they h a v e parallels in other parts of the R o m a n Empire. B.
THE
SICARII
1. The Basic Latin
Meaning
A second n a m e for the Jewish freedom party or a definite g r o u p w i t h i n the m o v e m e n t is the t e r m oiKdpioi, w h i c h is closely related to the c o n c e p t X,T|aTai.
This w o r d was originally Latin: sicarius, assassin. T h e t e r m is derived from the n a m e of the w e a p o n used in the act of assassination: sica, dagger. Even at the beginning of the imperial era, h o w e v e r , its m e a n i n g had b e c o m e m u c h wider, so that it m e a n t a m u r d e r e r or a violent criminal w h o intended to c o m m i t murder:'*' 'Nam per abusionem sicarios etiam omnis vocamus, qui caedem telo quocumque commiserunt'.'*^ T h e lex Cornelia de sicariis, passed b y Sulla, was directed against 'homicidas . . . vel eos, qui hominis occidendi causa cum telo ambulant'.'*' This law was c o n c e m e d above all w i t h robbers and for this reason latro and sicarius came to have the same m e a n i n g in legal language.'** 2. The Sicarii in Josephus T h e t e r m sicarius = CTiKapio? occurs as a loan-word'*' only in the writings of Josephus, w h e r e it appears quite suddenly. After describing '""See above, pp. 11 and 15f. '"' S. Kleinfeller, article on Sicarius, PW 2, Series 2, 2185f. and Forcellinus, Lexicon totius Latinitatis, 183Iff., 4 , 1 0 5 ; O . Betz, article on oiKdpioq, TD 7, 278ff.; I. Opelt, Die lateinischen Schimpfwdrter, Heidelberg 1965, 133ff.,209; see also R. Till, Historia 11 (1962), 322, n. 14. '"^ Quintilianus, Inst 10,1.12. ' * ' 4 , 1 8 . 5 ; sec also Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, 1899, 627ff.: 'condemnare aliquem lege de sicariis' (Tacitus, Ann 13,44). In R o m a n law, inter sicarios or de sicariis were fixed formulae for a case of murder that had to be dealt with in court; see Cicero, MarcAntPhil 2,4(8): 'quo modo sis eos inter sicarios defensurus'. '"••See above, p. 31f.; see also Mommsen, op. cit., 613,629f. i»5 xhesaurusgraecae linguae a H. Stephano, ed. E.B. Hase, G. Dinsdorf and L. Dinsdorf
THE SICARII
47
Felix' vigorous and successful proceedings against the Xviaxai in the country in the BeZ/wwi, Josephus reports the appearance o f a ' n e w kind of r o b b e r in Jerusalem'.'** These ' r o b b e r s ' w e r e applying n e w tactics and m u r d e r i n g their opponents in b r o a d daylight and especially o n feastdays, w h e n there w e r e great c r o w d s of people. For this purpose, they carried small swords hidden in their g a r m e n t s . A c c o r d i n g t o Josephus, their first victim was the high-priest, J o n a t h a n b . Ananus.'*' Josephus changes this report, h o w e v e r , in his Antiquities, claiming that the procurator, Felix, himself t o o k the initiative to h a v e J o n a t h a n murdered. This information is n o t reported in the BeZ/Mwi. Josephus also notes that, w h e n the murderers received n o p u n i s h m e n t for their action afterwards, they used this m o d e of killing m o r e frequently.'** Josephus does n o t speak of Sicarii until a little later, in the context of Festus' a p p o i n t m e n t to the office of procurator, and then he describes their n e w tactics in greater detail than he had in the BellumTheir first appearance during the procuratorship of Fehx is confirmed b y L u k e . " " In this text of the Acts of the Apostles, the C h i h a r c h and c o m m a n d e r of the Fortress of Antonia, Claudius Lysias, confuses Paul w i t h the Egyptian w h o led four thousand Sicarii into the desert. L u k e was probably c o m b i n i n g several events in this one t e x t . ' " T h e r e is n o evidence of an earlier occurrence of the t e r m . " ^
Paris 1842-46, 5, 265. It is only in a later papyrus (Oxyrhynchus, 1294,8 = 10, 248; second or third century A.D.) thatCTiKdpiovappears as a loan-word from Latin with the meaning of'dagger'; see Liddell-Scott, 2104. ""Be;/ 2,254; cf 425. G. Baumbach, ThLZ 90 (1965), 731, transferred, completely without foundation, 'the social subject of the party of the Sicarii' to Galilee. "'Bell 2,256. '»M«r 20,162-165. Ant 20,186(f): ol bk aiKdpioi KaXoOnevoi XijaTai. Their weapon was similar in size to the Persian short sword or akinake, but it was curved like the R o m a n sica. The method of perfidious assassination for political and religious reasons seems to have been practised previously in 'Zealot' circles and also by their predecessors. In Ant 15,282fr., there is reference to a conspiracy of ten men against Herod; the plan was for these men, with daggers hidden under their garments, to kill the king. A similar procedure is described in Acts 23.12-15. The model was Ehud's assassination of Eglon, Judges 3.11-30. ""Acts 21.38. S.FJ. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, I The Acts of the Apostles, 1920, 1, 422; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 61fr. It is, however, very doubtful whether Luke took these passages over from Josephus. A parallel tradition like that in Acts 5.37 is more probable; see below, p. 78. " ^ O . CuUmann, The State in the New Testament, 15, tried to make a connection between the name given to the traitor Judas, 'laKapubiiii;, and the Sicarii, following F. Schulthess in this, but his argument is not convincing. The form assumed by Schulthess, CTiKapiMTT)?, cannot be proved in any way to be authentic and the interpretation of the
48
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
This fact, taken together w i t h the Latin origin of the w o r d , w o u l d seem to suggest that m K d p i o i , as a n a m e for the XTjatai, can be traced back directly to the R o m a n authorities and soldiers in Palestine. T h e y p r e s u m a b l y gave the Jewish freedom fighters this n a m e w h e n the latter had been compelled b y the successes achieved b y the R o m a n procurator Felix in c o m b a t t i n g t h e m in the o p e n c o u n t r y " ' to t u r n their attention to Jerusalem and m a k e the city the theatre of their small-scale war, using n e w m e t h o d s of fighting. It has until n o w been assumed that the Sicarii f o r m e d an i n d e p e n d e n t party."* This is, h o w e v e r , n o t the case. T h e y w e r e a particularly active g r o u p w i t h i n the Xijaxai, e m p l o y i n g a n e w m e t h o d of fighting. T h e y t o o k the struggle i n t o the city itself and in this w a y c a m e substantially closer to achieving the aim that they had been h o p i n g to achieve, that o f a general uprising against R o m e . T h e ultimate decision a b o u t this could, after all, only be taken in Jerusalem i t s e l f " Josephus at first used the t w o concepts unhesitatingly side b y side w h e n speaking of the m o s t active and at the same t i m e leading g r o u p of insurgents w h o w e r e pressing for w a r . " ' It was n o t until there was a division in the ranks of the J e w i s h freedom m o v e m e n t at the beginning of the revolt that parties e m e r g e d . " ' O n e of these parties, consisting of the followers of the m u r d e r e d M e n a h e m , was from that t i m e o n w a r d s called b y Josephus m K d p i o i . " * These m e n had estabhshed themselves u n d e r the c o m m a n d of Eleazar b . Ari, a close relative of M e n a h e m , in the m o u n t a i n fortress of Masada in t h e region of the D e a d S e a . " ' T h e y did n o t play an i m p o r t a n t part in the further course of the war, in the end preferring collective suicide to subjection b y the Romans-^**" Josephus called the J e w i s h rebels w h o fled t o E g y p t after the end of the w a r in Judaea a i R d p i o i . ^ " ' These m e n could hardly, at least according to Josephus' account, have been refugees from Masada, since the entire
'Sicarii as non-Jewish, ahen robbers' is completely unfounded; see the author's Das Problem der SpracheJesu, 1917,41 and 54fr., and his article in ZNWIX (1922), 250fr. See also E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium {HNT 3), 4th. ed. 1950, 35. Bell 2,253f See Beginnings, 1, 422f '«See below, p. 358fr. See, for example, Ant 20,164f and Bell 2,254f; see also Ant 20,210; Bell 2 , 4 0 8 : . . . Tivfec; Ttbv ndXiCTxa KIVOUVTCOV XOV T I O X S H O V and 425. ""Bell 2,441-448; 2.S64f; 4,138f; 5,2fr.; see also below, p. 366fr. and 369fr. "*Be// 2,653: Xtiaxai; Bell 4,400ff: ol npoaaYopeuonevoi oiKdpioi; see also 4,504: XriCTxai; 516f: aiKdpioi. ""Bell 2,447; 7,399. See below, p. 332, n. 106. ™Be// 7,253.275-406. Bell 7,410fr.437; see also below, p. 260f
THE SICARII
49
garrison there had c o m m i t t e d suicide. T h e constant distinction m a d e b y Josephus b e t w e e n those w h o defended the city against Titus and the Sicarii is evidence that they did n o t originate in Jerusalem,^*'^ b u t it is hardly possible to achieve real clarity in this m a t t e r . W h a t is of critical importance, h o w e v e r , is that the Sicarii in E g y p t w e r e closely associated, t h r o u g h their o p e n confession of the 'sole rule of G o d ' , w i t h the organizer and spiritual father o f the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , Judas the Galilaean.^"' In another place, in his final settlement of accounts w i t h the rebels, Josephus makes a direct connection b e t w e e n the Sicarii and Judas, as t h e one w h o had caused the w h o l e 'evil'. T h e Sicarii, he claims, had, according to C y r e n i u s ' census, already risen at that t i m e (X6T£ y d p oi CTiKdpioi auvfeaTTiaav)^"* and had t h r o w n d o w n the gauntlet o f battle to all w h o looked for peace. This link was based o n an ideal and at t h e same time on a dynastic and therefore also an organizational d a t u m , n a m e l y that the leaders of the Sicarii, M e n a h e m and Eleazar b . Ari, w e r e descendants o f j u d a s the Gahlaean.^"' T h e n a m e sicarius was, as w e h a v e seen, n o t introduced until a few years before the o u t b r e a k o f the Jewish W a r in Palestine and the native p o p u l a t i o n of that c o u n t r y could hardly have been famihar w i t h the basic m e a n i n g of the Latin w o r d . For these reasons, then, it is possible that, u n h k e the t e r m 'knaxi]q, t h e w o r d sicarius, although it had originally been used as a t e r m of abuse b y foreigners, was later taken over b y the m e m b e r s of the g r o u p c o n c e m e d as an ' h o n o r a r y title' 206 It is obvious, h o w e v e r , that it could never h a v e been a n a m e that they originally gave themselves. T h e n a m e is found in Greek texts after Josephus o n l y in a few writings of the C h u r c h Fathers.^"' Its use in the rabbinic hterature, w h i c h I w o u l d n o w hke to consider, is m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t .
'"'See the Hst of defenders, Bell 5,248ff.3S8; 6,92.148. See below, p. 90. ""Bell 7,254, cf 262. See also below, pp.332fr. '"'Bell 2,433.447; 7,253. See also below, p. 78. ^""This is similar to the names 'Protestants', 'Huguenots', 'water-beggars' and so on. ^"'Hippolytus, Phil 9,26, CCS, ed. P. Wendland, 1916, 2,260. The Sicarii are here, together with the Zealots, derived from the Essenes; see below, p. 70f Origen, Contra Celsum 2,13, CCS, ed. P. Koetschau, 1899, 1, 142, reported that the Samaritans were killed as 'Sicarii' because they kept to the practice of circumcision. In other words, they were, after Hadrian's prohibition of circumcision, made subject to the lex Cornelia de sicariii; see Schurer 1, 538, n. 107; 1,539, n. 111. Mommsen, Strafrecht, 638, n. 4, is wrong. See G.W.H. Lampe, A Greek Patristic Lexicon, 1233, and below, p. 52, n. 223.
50
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
3. The Sicarii in the Rabbinic
Literature
T h e |''"lj7''0 are m e n t i o n e d only in one text in the Mishnahr^"* T h e people from Jerusalem once hid fig-cakes in water because of the Sicarii and the wise men declared them to be pure'. It is very probable that this anecdote refers to the famine b r o u g h t a b o u t b y the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus vividly describes h o w the ' r o b b e r s ' deprived the inhabitants of the city of their remaining p r o v i s i o n s . A c c o r d i n g to another later tradition, the Sicarii destroyed the w a t e r - p i p e that supphed Jerusalem w i t h w a t e r from Etham.^'" Again, according to the second version of the A b o t h D ' R . N a t h a n , they set fire to the city's supplies of c o m before the siege^" and, according to a parallel tradition, this destruction b y fire was caused b y Ben Battiach, R . J o h a n a n b . Zakkai's n e p h e w and the leader of the Sicarii ( f " l p ' ' 0 VH1 This leader of the rebels is called ' A b b a Sikera, the bandit leader in Jerusalem' ( D ' ? m n •'JVia VTl N l p - ' O S 3 S ) in another parallel text.^" H e r e the n a m e sicarius has almost b e c o m e a p r o p e r n a m e . W h a t w e have here, then, is presumably a further d e v e l o p m e n t of earher traditions. O n e text refers to the m o d e r a t i o n of the Sicarii. This is the only text w h e r e it is possible to question w h e t h e r the reference is to the same Sicarii w h o t o o k part in the Jewish War.^'"* W h a t is surprising, h o w e v e r , is that, w i t h the exception of this last text, the rabbinic authors always apply the n a m e Sicarii to the rebels in Jerusalem. T h e y therefore to s o m e extent contradict Josephus.^". W h a t ^'"Maksh 1,6: ]'nj7"'0n ''IBa WJi^ i n V ' m "UaDlP D ' ^ m nirsa . See also Derenbourg, 279ff., n. 3. '""Bell 6,193-213 and passim. "" LamentRab on 4.4,7; the tradition goes back to Abba b. Kahana (second half of the third century A.D.; sec Bill. Introduction, 142. The usual manuscripts have the reading n V i n n for the place and D''j?^SO for the author (for this, see below, p. 53), but the corrected texts by S. Buber, Vilna 1899, have DD'SIO and O ' l p I D ; see S.A. Buchler, 'On the Provisioning of Jerusalem in the Year 69-70 c.e.'. Studies in Jewish History, 1956, 102, and G. Dalmiri, Jerusalem und sein Geldnde, 1930, 279. This event was really an act of terror committed before the outbreak of the Jewish War or by Simon bar Giora. This water-pipe had been extended by Pilate, who financed the work with money from the Temple treasure; see Bell 2,175 = Ant 18,60. See also G. Dalman, op. cit., 279. '" c. 7, ed. Schechter (1887), 20. According to the first version, c. 6,8, they were the Wiap, the Zealots. For this, see Bell 5,24 and Tacitus, Hist 5,12. EcclRab on 7.12. Here p j J D should be read instead of p o p . ^"Gitt 56a; cf LamentRab on 1.5,31: here the leader is called Ben Battiach. For a senseless criticism of a wrong translation by S. Zeithn, JBL 81 (1962), 398, see J. Klausner, Hist 5, 230, and Jastrow, Dictionary, 2, 986. ^"jSot 20b,69, according to R. Oshaia, ca. 200; see Bill. Introduction, 135. ' " See above, p. 49.
THE SICARII
51
w e have here, then, m a y b e a fundamentally earlier form o f linguistic usage, since w e are b o u n d t o assume that t h e R o m a n authorities at least must have extended the use of the n a m e sicarii t o all Jewish freedom fighters since its introduction u n d e r t h e procuratorship of Felix. In t h e t w o traditions of the A b o t h D ' R . N a t h a n , the Sicarii o f t h e second version are contrasted w i t h the 'Zealots' (D''Xlp) o f the first version.^" It w o u l d seem that b o t h terms w e r e used w i t h o u t distinction for the rebels in Jerusalem. Josephus, o n the other hand, usually confined his use of the t w o names to definite groups. This can possibly b e explained b y the fact that the different parties appropriated the terms as names for themselves after the spht in the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t . ^ " W e cannot really learn anything, h o w e v e r , a b o u t t h e real n a t u r e o f the m o v e m e n t from the n a m e a i K d p i o i since, like the related t e r m XijaTai, it was given to t h e Jewish rebel party b y their o p p o n e n t s and pointed fundamentally only to the perfidious tactics that they used in fighting. Excursus III: The Sikarikon Law For a long time it was thought that the rabbinic term ]ip"'"np"'D was connected with Josephus' a i K d p i o i , since it was always concemed with the acquisition and possession of land or of slaves which or who had changed owners under the pressure o f foreign hegemony. The word could apply to these possessions or the new owners as well as to the law that regulated the change o f ownership and the acquisition of the property in question.^'* The view was widely held that the Sicarii had obtained others' property even before the Jewish War by means o f threats or extortion and that the sikarikon law was there to protect owners who had been robbed in this way.^" It was then pointed out by Elbogen that the term had nothing See below, p. 66. ^"See above, p. 49, n. 206, and below, p. 366. 2"* The texts in question are: Gitt 5,6; Tos 5,1 (Z. 328); j 47b,18fr.; b 44a and 58b; Bikk 1,2; tAZ 3,16 (Z. 464); tTer 1,6 (Z. 25): although the term 'sikarikon' does not appear here - only the matter is discussed; MekEx 23,19 (L 3, 187); SifDeut 26,2.297, ed. Friedmann; BB 47b. ^"This view was held by H. Graetz, 'Das Sikarikongesetz', y<j/jri>Mcfc des jiidischen theologischen Seminars, Breslau 1892; F. Rosenthal, MGWJ37 (1893), lfr.57fr.l05flr.; S. Krauss, 'Zur griechischen und lateinischen Lexicographic', Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893), 51 Iff.; J. Levy, Neuhebrdisches und Chalddisches Worterbuch, 1896fr., 3, 518f.; Schiirer, 1, 463, n. 33, who follows him. Graetz and Rosenthal assumed that the sikarikon law was passed by the Synhedrium before the destruction of Jerusalem. Rosenthal also presupposed a second stage, in which extortion was practised not by the Sicarii, but by the R o m a n fiscus, which received, by expropriation, large portions of land after the war. S. Krauss, Criechische und lateinische Lehnwdrter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 1899, 2, 392f, thought that p p ' ^ p ' ' 0 should be read in many cases instead of p i p ' D , insisting that ]1p''1p'0 was itself derived from oiKapiK6v, which was a parallel formation from Xi]aTpiK6v, so that the meaning was ultimately the same, that is, 'robbery and everything connected with it'.
52
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
directly to do with the Sicarii before and during the Jewish War, but that it only applied to property and especially land that was expropriated during and after the War by the Roman state. He came to no conclusions regarding the origin of the c o n c e p t . V a r i o u s attempts, most of them based on Greek legal terminology, were then made to interpret the meaning of the term. These interpretations were, however, unsatisfactory from the linguistic point of view.^^' Following Elbogen, Jastrow, for example, suspected that it was a 'disguise of KaiCTapiKiov',^^^ in other words, land confiscated by the imperial fiscus, but even this otherwise very plausible attempt at interpretation did not do justice to the corresponding linguistic parallels. A further investigation into the origin and meaning of the word showed that, according to certain Church Fathers and Roman legal sources from the time of Hadrian onwards, circumcision had been equated with castration and had been punished according to the lex de sicariisP'^ pp''^p'D would therefore refer to the expropriation of property as a punishment for circumcision. This derivation from the lex de sicariis undoubtedly comes closer to the reality of the situation than the other interpretations, but its application should not be seen simply as the result of Hadrian's prohibition of circumcision. The Sicarii could also be prosecuted during the Jewish War under this law and be deprived of their possessions.^^* The number of confiscations increased enormously especially after the War — so much so that the rabbis tried to check the wasteful disposal of Jewish land and property by means of the 'sikarikon provisions'. A situation similar to that which existed after 70 A.D. once again arose after the revolt of Bar Koseba, with consequences lasting until the rabbinic period.^^' The 'sikarikon provisions' may have been in force throughout the whole of this time. 'Pp-np-'D eine Studie', M G WJ 69 (1925), 249-257. For the expropriation of land after the war, see Bell 7,216f See also S.,Klein, 'Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte und Geographic Galilaas', Pal. Studien 1 (1923), 15ff. Elbogen's view is supported above all by jGitt 47b, 1 Iff, in which there is unequivocal evidence that the initiative to expropriate land was taken by R o m e and that it began during the war and continued after it. In several places in the text, the new, illegal owners — among whom Josephus himself can also be included (see above, p. 7, n. 5) — are identified with robbers, thieves or men of violence; see Bikk 1,2; tTer 1,6 (Z. 25) etc. S. Feist, 'Zur Etymologic von pp-ip"'0', MGIVJ (1927), 138-141, believed that the word was derived from the Greek legal term v6\ioi; auvKpivcov. A. Gulak, Tarb 5 (1933/34), 23-27, was of the opinion that the Hellenistic legal practice of compulsory sale was at the basis of the term, that is, inb KfjpuKi or ffuvKtipuKi. He was followed in this by N . N . Glatzer, Geschichte der talmudischen Zeit, 1937, 29. Dictionary, 2, 986. Only the adjective Kuiodpeio?, meaning belonging to Caesar or his property, appears in the PapyOxy 477,5. See Liddell-Scott, 860. S. Safrai, 'Sikarikon', Zion 17(1952), 56-64. See also the comment by Origen cited above, p. 49, n. 207. "••For the dating, see above, n. 220. It is remarkable that the Gemara of the t w o Talmuds on the Mishnah Gitt 5,6, in which the question of the sikarikon is treated in greatest detail, discusses the war under Vespasian and Titus exhaustively. " ' S e e Gitt 5,6; see also S. Safrai, op. cit.; see also M. Avi-Yonah, op. cit., 29f (see above, p. 40, n. 134).
BARJONE A N D GALILEANS
53
Despite the work of Elbogen and others, Klausner^^' continued t o insist freedom movement. T o support his view, he linked together t w o rabbinic statements about Gahlee:
that t h e term pp''1|?'0 referred t o members o f t h e Jewish
'In Galilee, it is always necessary t o take t h e possibility of'sikarikon' into consideration'. ' O h Galilee, Galilee! You have despised the Torah! You will soon have t o deal with extortioners'.^^* By these 'extortioners',^^' Klausner understands 'Zealots flocking together in bands'. S. Klein's interpretation is preferable to Klausner's. H e was of the opinion that the 'extortioners' (D''p"'S9) w e r e t h e n e w landowners appointed b y t h e Romans.^'" pp"''np''0 and D''p"'Sa may well have been t h e same men. They are not, however, the Sicarii of the period before and during t h e w a r . They are in fact those favoured b y R o m e after t h e end o f t h e war.^-" C . Barjone
AND GALILAEANS
1. The Barjone ("Ji-na) In a text that has already been m e n t i o n e d , the Babylonian T a l m u d calls the rebels in Jerusalem b y a special n a m e : 'Among them were barjone and, when the rabbis advised going out and making peace with those men (the Romans), they did not permit it'."^ T h e r e are also t w o references in the same passage to a certain ' A b b a Sikera, the leader of the barjone in Jerusalem'. T h e reply given b y R . Johanan b . Zakkai to Vespasian is also recorded: ' . . . and t o your reproach concerning why I have not come until now, (I reply:) the barjone among us have not let m e ' . " ' It m i g h t be possible to conclude from this that barjone C 1 V " I 3 , the plural of K2i-";i3 or WV-)"?; H e b r e w p"";i3, plural D''?r-13)"* was an established and original n a m e for the Zealots. R . Eisler was particularly ''"Jesus of Nazareth, 1925, 173, n. 103. " ' j G i t t 47b,20 bar. "'jShab 15d,50 bar, attributed to Johanan b. Zakkai. " ' D ' P ' O a = O ' - p - S a ; see BK 116b. '"•op. cit., \6S. BK 5,1: 'If someone has robbed ("^TJ) his neighbour of a field and "extortioners" (D''p''Sa) have taken it away from him . . . ' "^Gitt 56a; this translation follows L. Goldschmidt, 6, 364. Gitt 56b; this translation also follows Goldschmidt, 6, 365; see above, p. 50, n. 212. "*G. Dalman, Aramaisches-Neuhebriiisches Worterbuch, 3rd; ed. 1938; J. Levy, op. cit., 1, 266; S. Krauss, op. cit., 2,165f, reviews the texts in question. See also J. Nevada, J Q R 63 (1973), 317ff.
54
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
in favour of this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " ' and justified his decision b y appeahng to the derivation of the w o r d . T h a t suggested derivation can a h e a d y be found in L e v y . " ' T h e w o r d was, he claimed, formed from the root 1 3 ; S I S . " ' A c c o r d i n g to this interpretation, the English terms 'outcast' or ' o u t l a w ' r e p r o d u c e the m e a n i n g of the t e r m most closely. It is n o t difficult to i m a g i n e that the rebels, living in inaccessible parts of the c o u n t r y in deserts and caves, m a y have been given this n a m e by their compatriots."* T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , a very powerful a r g u m e n t against this a t t e m p t to link the t e r m so closely to the Jewish A-ijaxai of the period prior to 7 0 A . D . It is that the account of the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d of the siege of Jerusalem and the fate of R . J o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i is seen, w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h the rabbinic parallels, to be a legendary, extended and later form.^'' W h a t is m o r e , even the occurrence of the concept elsewhere does n o t point w i t h any certainty to a connection b e t w e e n the barjone and the Zealots.2*
S. Krauss therefore looked for a completely different explanation.^*' H e t o o k as his p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e the parables of the king in the Midrashim: 'A parable of a king whom his barjonim insulted in the purple that he was wearing .. .^*^ 'A parable about a barjon who threw stones at the statue of the king; then they all flocked together . . .'^"^ 'A parable about a barjon who was drunk, broke open the gaol, let the prisoners out, threw stones at the statue of the king, cursed the governor and said: 'Show me where the king is and I will teach him the law'.^** " ' 2,67f.; see also L. Goldschmidt, 1, 38, n. 392: 'Barjone was originally the name of a warring party in Jerusalem . . . Later it came to mean rowdies or hooligans'. ""op. cit., 1, 266; see Jastrow, Dictionary, 1, 193. 'Outside', but also 'uncultivated land, forest, wilderness'; as an adjective, 'living in the wilderness'. See also the corresponding Syriac word = agrestis, extemus, profanus; see C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, 2nd. ed. 1928, 88. "* S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 1 9 3 7 , 1 , 220, saw in them 'social outcasts', seeking their fortune in armed resistance to R o m e . " ' E c c l R a b on 7.12; LamentRab on 1.5,31; A b R N 4 , 6 , ed. Schechter, 23. In no case does the concept appear here. The name 'Ben Battiach' (EcclRab on 7.12 and LamentRab on 1.5; see also Kel 17,12) is more original than the imaginary name 'Abba Sikera' in Gitt 56a. Ber 10a; Taan 23b and Sanh 37a; Barjone means simply bad, undisicplined people in these related traditions, which are connected partly with R . Meir, partly with Abba Hilkia, the son of Honi, who prayed for rain, and partly with R. Zera. See especially Mon Tal V1, N o . 343b, n. 7. In Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwdrter, 2, 165, Krauss suggested that it was derived from tppoupiov = soldier, officer. 2 " ExRab 30,18. YalShim(Esther) 2,1056 (2MonTal V I , N o . 202). ExRab 30,11 (translation based on Wunsche, 228).
B/IR/ONE A N D GALILEANS
55
In S. Krauss' opinion, these barjonim w e r e in fact the Praetorian G u a r d {praetoriani = ^SV — "110 — 1 3 ) , w h o rose several times in the course of R o m a n history against the imperial masters. In the text q u o t e d above from Gitt 5 6 b , Krauss therefore translated ''fl^ as 'watchmen'.^'" B u t only the Zealots could have been m e a n t here and it is very unlikely that a n a m e for the Zealots should have been derived from the praetoriani, quite apart from the fact that the linguistic derivation also seems to b e rather forced. Jastrow^** therefore m a d e a distinction b e t w e e n the t w o w o r d s , suggesting that NJVIS, plural ''JV'13, m e a n t 'rebel, o u t l a w ' and that ]1'''13, plural •''IV'IS (the change in vocalization should be n o t e d ) , m e a n t 'palace-soldier, castle-guard' and was derived from n i ' ' 3 , residence, fortress or temple. This interpretation has the highest degree of probability, but it is still n o t entirely satisfactory. O n the one h a n d , the terms N3i'''^3 and p ' ' 1 3 are simply placed side b y side as the A r a m a i c and the H e b r e w forms of the same w o r d and, on the other, n o a t t e m p t is m a d e to reject the conjecture that the parables describing the destruction of the images of the k i n g b y barjonim m a y have a b a c k g r o u n d of bitter hostility on the part of Jewish rebels to w o r s h i p of the emperor.^*' Finally, there is n o certainty regarding w h i c h of the t w o meanings the w o r d should have. R . Eisler placed such emphasis o n the need to interpret the w o r d barjona, the singular form of the A r a m a i c plural barjone, in the sense of 'Zealot' because he believed that S i m o n Peter, called Bapicctvd in M t 16.17, was originally a Zealot.^*' O . C u U m a n n quite recently accepted this supposition."" Q u i t e apart from the p r o b l e m raised b y the n a m e Bar-Jona - a p r o b l e m that has still n o t been resolved — there are very serious misgivings arising from the context in w h i c h it occurs in the gospel. It is probable that the correct state of affairs is reflected in the Greek translation of the Bapirava of M t 16.17 into 'son o f j o h n ' in J n 1.42 and 2 I . I 5 . " > "'MonTal W\, No. nS. '""op. cit., 1, 193. J. Nedava, _/Qii 63 (1973), 321, has a similar solution to the problem. See Philo, LegGai 200f. (M 2,575), the destruction of the imperial altar by the Jews in Jamnia. »"See MekEx 17,8 (L 2,138); jKidd 61a,45 and Tan S I N 8, ed. Buber, 23f ''"op. cit., 2, 67. ^™ The State in the N e w Testament, 1963,1 bf.; Jesus und die Revolutioniiren seiner Zeit. 1970, 22f Sincov 6 ul6(; 'Itodvvou. See also the Gospel of the Nazarenes, Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 1 9 6 3 , 1 , 148, N o . 14. According to Mk 1.30 and 1 Cor 9.5, Simon was married, owned a house in Capernaum (Mk 1.29)
56
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
It is therefore very uncertain as to w h e t h e r the Jewish rebels of the period preceding 7 0 A . D . w e r e ever called *'|!i'''13 in the sense o f ' o u t l a w s ' b y their compatriots. W i t h a few exceptions, the term was used at a relatively late period and it is t o o shght a point of departure o n which to base w i d e r conclusions, particularly w h e r e the gospels are concerned.
2. The
Galilaeans
Judas, the organizer of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , is given the n a m e (6) ra^iX,aiO(; in Acts 5.37 and usually in the w o r k s ofjosephus."^ It is clear from the stubborn resistance to H e r o d and the revolt in Sepphoris, w h e n the t h r o n e changed hands after the death of the king, that Gahlee was the centre of resistance to foreign rule from the very b e g i n n i n g . ^ " This attitude of fierce opposition is explained by the Gahlaeans' bravery and love of freedom, so praised b y Josephus,"* as well as their pride and zeal for the law.^" H e describes t h e m in the Vita as zealous protagonists o f revolt against R o m e . " * Later, in Jerusalem, the m e n of the ouvTayiia trav FaXiXaicov w h o came to the city with J o h n of Gischala w e r e m o r e i m p e t u o u s and cruel than any o t h e r s . " ' If, then, the Zealot m o v e m e n t was founded b y a Galilaean and was given special support in that part of the c o u n t r y , it w o u l d be quite understandable for the followers o f j u d a s also to be called 'Galilaeans'. T h e r e are several data w h i c h indicate that this was in fact the case. T h e r e is in the Mishnah, for example, the following remarkable controversy b e t w e e n a 'Galilaean heretic' (''V''"?? V^) ^^'^ some Pharisees:"* and followed his brother Andrew as a fisherman (Mk 1.16). This does not tally with the idea of an outlaw in the desert. See also J.W. Jack, The Historic Christ, 1933, 187fr.; G. Dalman, Grammatik desjiidisch-palastinischen Aramdisch, 2nd. ed. 1905,179, n. 5, and W. Bauer, Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 7th. ed. 1971, 265. "'Bell 2,118, dvfip raXiXaio?; 2,433; Ant 18,23; 20,102. See also CIJ 1285,5.14; 1286,10. '"Bell l,204ff. = Ant 14,158fr.; Bell l,303flr. = Ant 14,413ff.; Bell 2,56 = Ant 17,271. ""Bell 3,41f " ' j K e t 29b,37f; MK 23a; Pes 55a, see E.G. Hirsch, 'Galilee', J £ 5, 554. See also G. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 1935, 6ff. The radical Galilaean Eleazar forced Izates of Adiabenc to be circumcised. Ant 20,43. The Galilaean 'robber' in the caves of Arbela killed himself and his whole family rather than yield to Herod: Ant 14,429f "" Vita 39, from the address given by Justus of Tiberias: vCv elvai Kaip6v dpa^£voU(; ajtXa Koi PaXiXaiooi; a u n n d x o t ) ; npoaXa^vxac,. See also 99,102.143.177.262.306.311. It is noteworthy that it was only in Galilaean Jotapata and part of Gamala bordering on Galilee that there was serious resistance to the Romans. '"Bell 4,558. ""Yad 4,8. The revised editions have " p n S . J. Levy, Worterbuch 4, 174b, believed
BARJONE A N D GALILEANS
57
i accuse you, Pharisees, of writing the name of the ruler with the name of Moses in the bills of divorce. The Pharisees replied: " W e accuse you, Galilaean heretic, of writing (the name of) the ruler and the name (of God) in (a) column Cjl^). And what is more, you write the name of the ruler above and the name (of God) below, for it is said: And Pharaoh said: W h o is Y H W H , whose voice I should heed, and let Israel g o ? " ' . B o t h A. G e i g e r " ' and H . Graetz^*" suspected that this "b"^} T'? was a follower of Judas of GaUlee, w h o was the first to d e m a n d that a J e w should recognize n o other L o r d than G o d alone.^" T h e Galilaean in this dialogue attacks the Pharisees for w r i t i n g the n a m e of the ruler o f the time on bills of divorce in such a w a y that it appears o n the d o c u m e n t alongside the n a m e of Moses.^'^ T h e Pharisees ironically reverse the accusation and accuse the Gahlaean — or rather, the Gahlaeans — of writing the names of the sovereign ruler and of G o d in a c o l u m n (in the Torah) and d o i n g so in such a w a y that, as Ex 5.2 shows, the n a m e of the ruler appears first. T h e point is, then, that w h a t is possible in the T o r a h is permitted o n a bill of divorce. A t the same t i m e , the m a i n a r g u m e n t o f the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t , that all secular rulers lose all claim t o legitimate authority because G o d is the only ruler, is refuted.^" It is, o f course, quite possible to dispute the correctness of this interpretation of the 'Galilaean heretic' as a follower ofjudas of Gahlee,^*'* b u t it does seem to be the best possible explanation of this difficult text.^*'
that the co-founder of the Zealot Party, Zadok the Pharisee, was involved here; see Ant 18,4. The anecdote is contained in a mutilated form in the Tosefta; see tVad 2,20 (Z. 684). Here it is a Jewish baptist sect, the piHlT ""VaitS, who are criticizing the Pharisees. ""Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bihel, 1857; 2nd. ed. 1928, 35. The author is mistaken in speaking about a 'Gahlaean called Theudas', the confusion arising no doubt because of Acts 5.36. See, however. Bill. 4, 351, n. 1. ^'"H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 2nd. ed. 1863, 3, 209f See below, p. 90. See Gitt 8,5; see also G. Lisowsky, Die Mischna, Text, Vbersetzung und ausJiihrUche Erklirung, ed. G. Beer et al., VI, 11, Jadajim 1956, 80. G. Lisowsky's interpretation, op. cit., 8 1 , is not convincing. If these heretics had used the name of God, the sovereign ruler, on bills of divorce, their criticism of the Pharisees would have been without foundation. ' O n (a) sheet or column' refers to the Torah. ^"Bill. 4,351; L. Goldschmidt, 12, 853, n. 3 1 : 'It was obviously a Judaeo-Christian who was involved, since he recognized no ruler other than God'. S. Lieberman,_/BL 71 (1952), 205, thought that the Galilaean heretic might possibly have been an Essene. According to Bell 2,145, the 'name of the lawgiver' was especially protected among them. The tYad parallels can also be understood in this light; see above, n. 258. The question, is, however, once again raised as to a possible correspondence between Essenes and Zealots; see below, p. 281 f Apart from Geiger and Graetz, see J. Derenbourg, 161; K. Kohler, 'Zealots',_/£ 12, 641; J. Klausner, Hist 4, 201; A. Schlatter, GI, 434; J. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, 3rd. ed. 1962, 2, 819.
58
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
B o t h Justin^** a n d H e g e s i p p u s ^ " p r o v i d e Usts o f Jewish sects and 'Gahlaeans' are included in b o t h a u t h o r s ' hsts.^'* M o s t scholars w h o have v e n t u r e d t o identify these 'Gahlaeans' h a v e assumed that they w e r e J u d a s ' followers.^*' Justin a n d H e g e s i p p u s w e r e , because o f their o w n origins, familiar w i t h t h e Judaeo-Palestinian tradition and their data w e r e n o d o u b t based in a historical situation. T h e 'Galilaeans' are also m e n t i o n e d b y Epictetus, o n e o f the ancient philosophers:^™ ' . . . h o w is it that a t y r a n t , a r m e d m e n o r their s w o r d s should frighten h i m ? If a m a n can b e so c h a n g e d b y madness (6nd naviai;) o r b y habit (tnd gGou;), as t h e Galilaeans h a v e been, that h e develops such a (philosophical) attitude t o w a r d s these things, t h e n n o m a n w o u l d b e able t o leam b y reflection a n d evidence that G o d has m a d e e v e r y t h i n g . . . ' T h i s passage is usally applied t o C h r i s t i a n s " ' and their attitude in the persecutions. As o n e scholar has said: ' T h e r e can be n o d o u b t that the Galilaeans m e n t i o n e d h e r e can o n l y b e C h r i s t i a n s . . . H o w is it possible that Epictetus should, in t h e lectures that he g a v e a b o u t 1 1 0 A . D . , have m e n t i o n e d t h e Zealots o f j u d a s t h e Galilaean, w h o h a d been eradicated m a n y decades before his t i m e and o f w h o m he h a d h a r d l y heard?'^'^ T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , quite c o n v i n c i n g a r g u m e n t s against this. In t h e first place, Epictetus was in R o m e in the years following the Jewish W a r a n d it is v e r y likely t h a t he heard o f t h e events in Palestine w h e n he was
'""DialTryph 80,2. "'Eusebius, HistEcc 4,22.7. ""Justin: Sadducees, Genists, Merists, Galilaeans, Hellenians, Pharisees and Baptists; Hegesippus: Essenes, Galilaeans, Hemero-Baptists (the Jewish baptist sect), Masbotheans, Samaritans, Sadducees and Pharisees. A. von Harnack, 'Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog', TU 39 (3,9) (1913), 58, stressed that the two lists were independent of each other. See also his Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 1893,1, 149; J.T. Milik, RB 60 (11953), 288, n. 2, and M. Black, 'The Patristic Accounts of Jewish Sectarians', BJRL 41 (1958), 287f ^•"'This view was held by A. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, 1884, 31; G. Hoennicke, DasJudenchristentum, 1908, 36, n. 1; E. Meyer, Urspriinge und Anfdnge des Christentums,4th. ed. 1925, 2,407; B.-Gr. Rel. 88; H. Karpp, 'Christennamen', RAC 2, 1131. Hamack, on the other hand, rejected this interpretation, TU 39, 59: 'It is best to abstain from every hypothesis'. "» Arrian, D i « 4,7.6. ^" A. von Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1908, 1,401 f The name for Christians appeared at a late stage and was rarely used, apart from during the period of Julian the Apostate; see op. cit., 413 and 187. Other examples can be found in H. Karpp, op. cit. In Acts 1.11 and 2.7, it is merely a case of using names to indicate a geographical origin. The same also applies to the 'Galilaeans' in the Bar Koseba letter from the Wadi el-Murabba'at; see J.T. Milik, RB 60 (1953), 276if. " ^ E . Meyer, op. cit., 3, 530, n. 1.
THE -ZEALOTS'
59
in the city.2" W h a t is m o r e , Josephus exphcitly emphasizes that the Sicarii w e r e resolute in m a r t y r d o m and that this steadfast attitude was widely k n o w n : 'Their steadfastness, their madness (djtovoia) or their strength of mind, whatever one chooses to call it, aroused universal astonishment'.^'* Finally, the n a m e 'Galilaean' was only very rarely apphed t o Christians before the t i m e o f Julian the A p o s t a t e . " ' This fact at least to some extent justifies the apphcation of Epictetus' text to the Zealots rather than to C h r i s t i a n s . " ' T h e 'Galilaeans w h o s e b l o o d Pilate had m i n g l e d w i t h their sacrifices', that is, of course, w i t h the b l o o d o f their sacrifices (Lk 13.1) h a v e also quite often been interpreted as Zealots.^" Even if a revolt w i t h i n the context of a passover feast is presupposed here, h o w e v e r , it m a y still b e a case of using a n a m e indicating a geographical origin. T h e r e is, then, relatively httle information about the possible n a m e 'Gahlaeans' for the Zealots and w h a t exists is very scattered. W e m a y assume w i t h some degree of probability, h o w e v e r , that they w e r e at least to some extent called that. T h e y formed an i n d e p e n d e n t sect alongside other Jewish rehgious groups and their origins have, simply o n the basis of that n a m e , to be sought in the activity o f the Galilaean Judas. D . THE
'ZEALOTS'
1. Greek Linguistic
Usage
T h e n a m e for the m e m b e r s of the Jewish freedom m o v e m e n t w i t h the most substantial content that occurs in Josephus' w o r k s is ^TIX-COTTI?. In its original meaning, this w o r d , w h i c h is derived from ^ T I X O O V , ^ ' * was used
"'Epictetus was bom about 55 A.D. in Hierapolis in Phrygia and went as a young slave to Rome, where he lived with his master and patron Epaphroditus, Nero's freedman; see the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 1970, 390. "'Bell 7,417; cf. Ant 18,23f: 'Since their stubbornness (in martyrdom) has become generally known as a result of observation, I think that I can refrain from further comments about them'. Josephus was still able to write in this way in about 93/94 A.D. " ' S e e above, p. 58, n. 2 7 1 . " ' See also J. Klausner, Hist 4, 201 and A. Schlatter, GI 443 and 'Die Martyrer in den Anfangen der Kirche', BFChTh 19 (1915), 66 (290), n. 35. " ' This was the opinion of R. Eisler, 2, 516-525; see also S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 1951, 106; H.G. Wood, NTS 4 (1956), 236; O . CuUmann, The State in the New Testament, (1963), 14. For an interpretation, see below, p. 337f See also S. Zeitlin, J Q R 64 (1974), 189-203. "* To enthuse about something, to admire something, to make something the aim of one's striving, to try vigorously to imitate, to envy; see A. Stumpff, t^f[Xo(;, TD 2, 77f
60
THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
t o d e n o t e a m a n w h o c o m m i t t e d himself entirely t o a cause that he w a n t e d t o m a k e his o w n . It therefore m e a n t an e m u l a t o r , a n i m i t a t o r or an adorer. It appeared relatively late for t h e first t i m e in the fourth c e n t u r y B . C . " ' Plato, for e x a m p l e , speaks o f ^TiXcoxai, ipaami
and naGTirai
o f t h e Spartan m e t h o d s o f e d u c a t i o n . I n this sense, the ^TiXcotfiq m a y also directly indicate t h e learner.^*' T h e w o r d was also frequently used in the c o n t e x t o f t h e virtues"^ or care for t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f the P o l l s . " ' Philo's use o f the t e r m is similarly strictly related to t h e virtue or cause w i t h w h i c h he is c o n c e m e d and, because o f its t o o strong emphasis,
he e m p l o y s
it in a n e g a t i v e
sense^** m o r e
affective
often
than
positively.^*' E v e n J o s e p h u s frequently applies C,r\X(oxr\c, in this w a y t o a virtue or a g o o d cause^** and t h e same usage also occurs in the N e w T e s t a m e n t and t h e w o r k s o f t h e early Christian authors.^*' T h e application o f t h e w o r d t o persons, that is, its use in the sense o f ' a d o r e r ' , 'disciple' o r 'follower', was later,"* a l t h o u g h it was e m p l o y e d in this w a y w i t h increasing frequency f r o m a b o u t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the Christian
era
onwards.
Plutarch
employed
the
concept
almost
""For the following, see the various dictionaries: F. Passow, Handworterbuch der griechischen Sprache, Sth. ed. 1841fr., 1, 1309; Liddell-Scott, 775; W . Bauer, Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 7th. ed. 1971, 668f ""Protagoras 343a; similarly Diodorus Siculus, BibHist 1,73 and Herodian, ExcDiviMarc 6,8.2. " ' Philodemus, Reth 2,262 (first century B.C.); Diogenes Laertius 9,38; Thrasyllus (first century A.D.) on Democritus: ^ . T & V nuGayopiKwv, that is, of the doctrines of the Pythagoreans. See also lamblichus, VitaPyth (XXVIII) 151, third century A.D.: K,.xf\(; 'Opcpicoi; 4pnT|veia(;.
"^Isocrates, Dem 1,11: CTTJ? n a t p t p a ? dpetfji;: Epictetus, Arrian, Diss 2,12.25. "'Aeschines, Orat 2,171; W . Dittenberger, SIG, 3rd. ed. 1915if., 675,27f and 756,32; Plutarch 2 (Moralia) 6D: Demosthenes for Athens. VitaMos 2,55.161: ^.trnv AlyuTtxiaKwv nXaandxtov; similarly 2,196; Abr 22; MutNom 93; SpecLeg 1,333; 4,89.91.199 etc. " M i r 33: ^.xiii; S I K O I O C T U V T I ; ; 60: euaePeiai; and dpextii;; similarly SpecLeg 1,30; Virt 175 etc. ""'Bell 6,59: the first R o m a n soldiers to climb the walls of the fortress Antonia were C,.T'f\q dv5psia(;; Ap 1,162, where Pythagoras is called a ^. of aotpia and euaspeia. Those places in which Josephus follows the Jewish tradition and speaks of zeal for the Law and faith {Ant 12,271 and Ant 20,47) could be understood by a Hellenistic reader in the pedagogical and philosophical sense. For a typical interpretation of the name of the party by Josephus as ^riXcoxai, see Bell 4,160. See also below, p. 65f " ' 1 Cor 14.12; 1 Pet 3.13; Tit 2.14; 1 Clem 45,1; EpPol 6,3. ^""The earliest examples of this are found on inscriptions; Dittenberger, op. cit., 717,33: Tfflv KaXXioTCOv (that is, of the Attic epheboi, 100/99 B.C.); see also Strabo 10,5.6 (486) and the historian Memnon (first century B.C. — first century A.D.?) in FGrHist F 1,35: ^.xf\(; Aandxoi) T T P O A I P T E E C O I ; ( o f the activities of Lamachus).
THE 'ZEALOTS'
61
exclusively in relation to persons^*' and Epictetus, for e x a m p l e , speaks of a ^TiXcotfiq zf\q dXtiGeiaq Kai ScoKpatouq Kai Aioy^vouq.'^"' In the later period of classical antiquity, the t e r m was p r e d o m i n a n t l y applied to h u m a n examples.^" W h e n Josephus calls himself a C^lAxoxfiq of the h e r m i t B a n n u s in his Vita, it is entirely in accordance w i t h Hellenistic linguistic usage.^'^ T h e w o r d was also used in the religious and ethical sense b y the Stoic moral philosophers of the first century A . D . and applied to G o d . Musonius, for example, required the k i n g to behave ethically and t o be a C,r\hi)xi\q xoO Ai6q.^" This d e m a n d was repeated b y his pupil Epictetus, w h o applied it to the philosopher:^''' 'If the deity is faithful, he (the philosopher) must also be faithful. If the former is free, he must also be free. If the former is benevolent, he must also be benevolent. If the former is magnanimous, he must also be magnanimous. In all that he says and does, he must behave as an imitator of God (6? O s o C . . . ^tlX(BTF|V)'.
In b o t h cases, the w o r d s should be interpreted in the sense o f the imitatio Dei, since the Jewish idea of 'zeal for G o d ' w o u l d h a v e been impossible for the Stoic philosopher.^" T h e w o r d C,r\X(ozr\q was very rarely used in the absolute sense. T h e earliest evidence, in a fragment of Epicurus, has obscure m e a n i n g that cannot be interpreted in any of the c u s t o m a r y w a y s . " * It occurs once in the Didache in the negative sense alongside ipiaxiKdq and 0UHIK6V ^pnl^' Vibv) . . . ' R . Huna said: With four oaths God adjured them, according to the four generations who have tried to bring close the appointed time and have therefore come to grief These are the generation in the days of Amram, that in the days of Dinai,"' that in the days of Ben Koseba and finally that in the days of Shutelah b. Ephraim'.^'* It is clear from this that the 'forcing' o f the end b y revolt against the secular p o w e r of R o m e could also be found in the rabbinate and, w h a t is m o r e , to such an extent that the m e m o r y of their concrete attempts to d o this persisted even after m o r e than t w o centuries. It is obvious that the rabbinate had to reject attempts o f this kind after the catastrophes of 7 0 and 1 3 4 / 1 3 5 A . D . , b u t the desire to hasten the c o m i n g of the end remained aUve, a l t h o u g h in a changed form. Several of the statements m a d e b y teachers of the synagogue came very close to the ideas of the Zealots. T h e r e is, for example, the clearly formulated a r g u m e n t of R . Eliezer b . Hyrcanus,^" the pupil and
" " S o n g R a b on 2.7. The parallels provided in BilL 1, 599 — Ket I l i a and TanB D ' ' n 3 1 , 4 , ed. Buber, 2 — are no more than brief summaries. See also Derenbourg, 279f and H. Graetz, 5th. ed., 3, 4 3 1 , n. 4. R . J o s e b. Hanina hved in the third century A.D.; see Bill. Introduction, 138. R . Helbo and R . Huna, the teachers who are mentioned later, were contemporaries and lived at the beginning of the fourth century A.D.; see Bill. Introduction, 144. " ' H. Graetz, op. cit. and 3, 360, K. Kohler,_/£ 12, 648a, and Klausner, Hist 5,16f, all identify Amram with this rebel, who, according to Ant 20,4, was banished by Cuspius Fadus. Bill. 1, 599, n. 1, on the basis of a reference to Sot 12a, believes that he was the father of Moses. ' " This Dinai is the bandit leader mentioned several times in the rabbinic hterature (Sot 9,8; Ket 27a; Kel 5,10) and in Josephus. See also below, p. 349f " " See N u m 26.35 and 1 Chron 7.20. According to Bill. 1, 599, n. 3, the children of Shutelah anticipated the redemption from Egypt and therefore died on the way to Canaan; see MekEx on 15.14 (L. 2, 72), Sanh 92b etc. According to this legend, the attempt to bring about the time of salvation prematurely by violent means should also be condemned. " ' F o r R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, see above, p. 108f; see also below, pp. 202,290f
THE MESSAGE OF J U D A S THE GALILAEAN
125
c o n t e m p o r a r y of R . J o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i , in w h i c h the contradiction of the m o r e lenient R . Joshua (b. Hanania) was i m m e d i a t e l y b r o u g h t to mind:"' ' R . Eliezer b. Hyrcanus said: If the Israehtes do not do penance, they will not be redeemed in eternity (DblX?'? D'-xVupS naiirr fWS? VsiBrfN DN), for it is said (Is 30.15): "By rependng and remaining peaceful you will be saved". R.Joshua replied to him: How, if the Israelites rise up and refuse to repent, will they never be redeemed? R. Eliezer said: The Holy One . . . will place over them a king who is as cruel as Haman. Then they will at once repent and be redeemed. On what is this founded? "There will be a time of distress for Jacob, yet he shall be saved out of i t " ' (Jer 30.7) . . . The discussion was taken further. It was only when R.Joshua quoted Dan 12.7, in which the question of the three and a half times between the desecration of the Temple and the end is discussed, that R . Eliezer withdrew, presumably because a fixed point in time was established here for the end and because, according to this text, there had to be a certain period of time between the destruction of the Temple and the coming of the time of salvation.^" Jose the Galilaean, a c o n t e m p o r a r y of R . Akiba, held the same view:^'* 'Repentance is very great because it brings about redemption. It is said: "There will come to Zion a Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression" (Is 59.20). Why (is it said that): "There will come to Zion a Redeemer"? Because they "in Jacob turn from transgression"'. This connection in the rabbinic tradition b e t w e e n repentance and the time of s a l v a t i o n " ' can be fitted w i t h o u t m u c h difficulty into Judas the Galilaean's message, since recognition and tolerance of the godless secular p o w e r and its ruler w h o was venerated as a g o d w e r e very close to idolatry. C o n v e r s i o n to the true will of G o d therefore consisted o f a refusal to obey the e m p e r o r and that conversion was the p r e c o n d i t i o n for G o d ' s intervention and help and the c o m i n g of t h e messianic t i m e o f salvation. T h e exegetical a r g u m e n t of R . Eliezer b . H y r c a n u s forms the foundation for the defeat of the eschatological tyrant, an idea that was
"''jTaan63d,60fr.; translation based on Bill. 1,162f; see also Bill. I , 6 0 0 a n d 4 , 9 9 2 f ; Mooie, Judaism 2, 351; Volz, Esch, 103; A. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzdgungsproblem, Leiden 1961, 23ff. ^"See Bill. 1, 163; Eliezer may have expected the end when the Temple was destroyed and have attributed the delay in the end to the impenitence of Israel. Yom 86b: n"71Rl flX (nanpDIP) n a i W nVnJ. According to Bill. 1, 599 ( = W. Bacher, Aggada der Tannaiten, 2nd. ed. 1903, 1, 362), Jose the Galilaean and not R. Jonathan has to be accepted as the author, since the Yalkuth on Is 59.20 (498) ascribes the words to Jose. See also Moore, jMifaijm, 2, 351. " ' S e e the great number of witnesses: BilL 1, 162-165 and 599f
126
J U D A S THE GALILAEAN'S T O U R T H PHILOSOPHY'
m a d e p o p u l a r in w i d e circles of Palestinian J u d a i s m b y the example of H e r o d I and Caligula and was certainly also accepted b y the Zealots.^*" A c c o r d i n g to the rabbinate, a second possible w a y of influencing the c o m i n g of the messianic time was b y perfect obedience to G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s . T h e r e is, for example, the w e l l - k n o w n statement m a d e b y R . Simeon b . Jochai, a pupil of R . Akiba, that Israel w o u l d be r e d e e m e d at once if only the people kept t w o sabbaths in accordance w i t h the commandments.^*' It was also believed that the rule of G o d could be b r o u g h t closer b y acts of goodness and the study of the T o r a h . E v e n the c o m i n g of Elijah as the precursor of the Messiah could be m a d e d e p e n d e n t o n the keeping o f the commandments.^*' In the same w a y , a l t h o u g h less frequently, the possibility of delaying the c o m i n g of the messianic t i m e of salvation was also discussed m the rabbinic tradition: It is said in a Baraita:"The proselytes and those who dally with little girls hold the Messiah back (n"ipan n x f'asya)".^*'' It was possible for a c o m b i n a t i o n o f these different statements to lead to a theological view of history based on the fact that G o d could have b r o u g h t a b o u t the t i m e of salvation at any previous stage d u r i n g the history of Israel and that he had been prevented from doing this only because of the attitude of the Israelites themselves as people w h o w e r e n o t ready to repent o r to obey the law: " R a b said: All times are past. N o w the matter is confined to repentance and good works".2*'Just as R . Eliezer was contradicted by R.Joshua, so too was R a b contradicted by Mar Shemuel. With his answer: "It is sufficient for the one who suffers to persist in his sorrow" he showed that he did not want to abandon faith in a fixed time at the end.2** This w o u l d seem to suggest that the p o i n t of departure for this view of the speeding u p or the slowing d o w n of the c o m i n g of the time of salvation that was so fiercely disputed in the later rabbinic tradition
^'"See below, p. 303f. " ' Shab 118b bar; see also Bill. 1, 600 and Moore, op. cit., 2, 350. "^See Bill, and Moore, op. cit.: BB 10a bar and Sanh 99b. ^"See Deut 11.13, 41 Bill. 4, 789 (q) and Moore, op. cit. Nidd 13b above; translation based on Bill. 1, 600. See also A. Strobel, op. cit., 40ff. " ' Sanh 97b; translation based on Bill. 1, 164. See also Moore, op. cit., and M. Zobel, Gottes Gesalbter, 1938, 80. Sanh 97b; translation based on M. Zobel, loc. cit. For the idea that God wanted to bring about the time of salvation at an earher period, but that Israel failed here, see above, p. 120f See also the discussion about Hezekiah, whom God wanted to make the Messiah: M. Zobel, op. cit., 89.
THE MESSAGE OF J U D A S THE GALILAEAN
127
should be sought in the a r g u m e n t ofjudas the Gahlaean and Saddok that salvation w o u l d n o t c o m e purely automatically, b u t that pious J e w s had to play their part in this and w e r e b o u n d to break definitively w i t h the rule of R o m e that was so opposed to G o d . A l t h o u g h this original idea was later rejected, a variant of it was retained in the rabbinic tradition, in w h i c h it persisted as far as the later period, at the same t i m e giving rise to several controversies.
4. The
Census
Josephus reports in several places that the first tax assessment t o b e carried out after Judaea had been changed b y the n e w g o v e r n o r of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius (in the Greek form Kupivio