APPENDIX 1 - Zealots and Revolutionaries
APPENDIX 1
Zealots and Revolutionaries
What do we know about the “Zealot movement”? Evidence seems to tell against a unified revolutionary movement in first-century Palestine.1 The actual designation “Zealots” applies strictly only to some rather than to most early Jewish revolutionaries; Josephus seems to reserve the title for a limited group.2
Josephus portrays the revolutionaries as “brigands,” endeavoring to marginalize them from the mainstream Jewish population.3 Richard Horsley and John Hanson envision the Zealots as peasant brigands in contrast to more educated levels of resistance.4 Some modern scholars view these peasant brigands before the Jewish revolt in the light of modern studies of social bandits.5 The revolutionaries and bandits of Jesus’ day may have had some support from Galilean villagers; at least the Roman governor Cumanus thought that they did.6 But it is not clear to what extent Galilean peasants really supported the goals of such bandits, especially in the Lower Galilee whence Jesus came (we discuss revolutionaries and Galilee further in chapters 1 and 12);7 one should also allow for the impact of some degree of urban unrest.8 Nevertheless, it seems likely that many bandits circulated among the peasantry.9
Much of this brigandage before the first revolt may have been “prepolitical” rather than aimed at an overthrow of Roman domination, an objective that may have grown only toward the beginning of the Jewish War.10 Brigandage was common in antiquity and inevitably warranted execution if the brigands were captured.11 Yet revolution was always a possibility. Many dissatisfied persons opted to work within the system, but others likewise hoped for its overthrow, eschatologically or otherwise.12 Even Josephus informs us that some of the rebels fancied themselves kings (Jos. Ant. 17.285), suggesting that the authorities could view the line between revolutionary and messianic sentiment as thin (see Mk 15:2, 18, 26).
Although some Pharisees probably opposed the revolutionary ideal, some scholars believe that they shared a basic (populist) Pharisaic ideology expressed in a more militant manner.13 This overlap in perspectives may be because Pharisees were close to popular sentiments in general.14 Most of the revolutionaries’ ideas were probably widespread in early Judaism,15 and eschatological expectation probably fueled all levels of Jewish resistance.16 Both resentment against Rome17 and confidence that God would defend those loyal to him18 were also widespread.
Witherington points out that some Pharisees did “basic training” (Jos. Life 11-21) and that revolutionary leaders could send Pharisees in charge of military contingents (Jos. Life 197).19 In the earlier Wars, when the material is still politically sensitive, Josephus plays down both Pharisaic involvement in the revolt and Jewish involvement more generally, but in the later Antiquities a revolt as early as A.D. 6 appears part of a larger movement toward the revolt of 66-73 (Jos. Ant. 18.9-10, 23-25; Acts 5:34-35). Menahem, a figure instrumental in the revolt of 66-73, was descended from Judas the Galilean, a leader in the earlier revolt (Jos. War 2.433). Josephus also admits the revolutionaries’ theological commitments (Jos. Ant. 18.4-5, 23).
In all, the evidence may not support the early use of the title “Zealot” or a single, unified movement (such as Josephus’ convenient “Fourth School”). It does nevertheless support the continuing existence of simmering revolutionary sentiments through the early first century, hence the relevance of such sentiments to Jesus’ environment.20