Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:13:37.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Zealots: the Case for Revaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Shimon Applebaum
Shimon Applebaum
Affiliation:
The University of Tel Aviv
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two events have conspired to redirect the attention of scholars towards the Zealots, who played so decisive a part in the Jewish rebellion against Rome between A.D. 66 and 73: the discovery of the Judaean Desert manuscripts, and the total excavation of Masada (1955–56; 1964–65). Both events have cast new light on the Zealot movement, but, as is so often the case with new discoveries, they have also created new problems, and neither can furnish a substitute for the careful examination of, and reflection upon, the character and origins of the movement. The important material has for long been available to scholars. Despite this, agreement has been rare. However conscientious historians have wished to be, they have tended to be influenced by the traditions to which they are the heirs. Denounced by their enemies in the ancient world, the Zealots, it may be thought, have also been exposed to subtler misunderstandings on the part of modern historians.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 61 , November 1971 , pp. 155 - 170
Copyright
Copyright ©Shimon Applebaum 1971. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hamilton, A. S., JRS LVII, 1967, 272–3Google Scholar.

2 Richmond, I. A., JRS LII, 1962, 155Google Scholar.

3 ibid.JRS XLIV, 1954, 43. For the nineteenth century, we may remember Cowper or Tennyson.

4 Schürer, (Gesch. Jüd. Volkes I, 1901, 486Google Scholar): ‘eine strengere fanatische Partei’; A. H. M. Jones, (The Herods of Judaea, 1938, 237): ‘perverse fanatics’; so also Dubnow, , Weltgeschichte des Jüdischen Volkes 11, 1925, 375Google Scholar; Wellhausen, Prologomena to the History of Israel, (Eng. tr. 1957), 535; Travers Herford, The Pharisees, 1924, 52: ‘the wild men of the Pharisees’. Mommsen and Eduard Meyer were both ironical. ‘Alongside the fanatics,’ says the former (Provinces of the Roman Empire, 11, (Eng. tr. 1899), 222), ‘the decayed or decaying elements of society played their part’; they were admittedly patriots, but ‘not daring statesmen, but fanatical peasants … began and waged the war against Rome’. Meyer, after a short and adequate account of the Zealot ideology, adds (Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums III, 1921, 402–4Google Scholar): ‘to the mass, these pious robber chieftains appeared as martyrs for the Law, surrounded by a false halo of sanctity.’ Momigliano, (CAH x, 1934, 852Google Scholar) was content to characterize the Zealots as ‘an extreme minority’; but otherwise the CAH is completely silent on the origin and development of the movement. MacMullen (Enemies of the Roman Order, 1966) deals with the background of the group without as much as mentioning their name, and confines himself to the mystical prophecies which constituted a feature of the movement.

6 History of the Second Temple II, 1954, 122–123Google Scholar. Two earlier writers, Jost and Noth, had been more favourable: for Jost the Zealots were non-political, entirely concerned in saving the Law (Gesch, des Judenthums, 1867, 327–8); Noth thought that ‘they interpreted traditional promises in a national sense’ (The History of Israel (Eng. tr. 1960), 432). Among non-Jewish writers a notable exception was Dean A. P. Stanley, personal friend of Queen Victoria, who wrote with warm appreciation of the heroism and self-sacrifice of the Zealots (Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church III, 1893, 411). For a brief but thoughtful analysis of the Zealot position in the light of the contemporary Jewish social and economic situation, Baron, S. W., Social and Religious History of the Jews2 11, 1952, 46–48Google Scholar. There is an incisive formulation in Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, 1939, 40: ‘The ideal of the Kannaim was a Jewish republic with God as its president and the Law for its constitution.’

6 e.g. M. Beer, Allgemeine Gesch. des Socialismus und der socialen Kämpfe, 1924; K. Vorländer, Gesch. der socialistischen Ideen, 1924; H. Fuks, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt, 1938; M. Rostovtzeff, A Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (2nd edn. 1957); Thompson, E. A., ‘The Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain’, Past and Present 11, 1952Google Scholar; R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, 1966. Neither Beer nor Vorländer, though both have sections on social movements among the ancient Jews, mention the Zealots; militant revolutionary movements based upon religious beliefs—at any rate among the Jews—were probably embarrassing to these writers. Even the Victorian conscience was not completely at ease with the Empire's social record; W. T. Arnold, writing in 1879, found it necessary to defend the benefits conferred by Roman rule on its conquered subjects and to cast a profit and loss account in the process (The Roman System of Provincial Administration 3, 1914, 32–44Google Scholar).

7 ‘The Zealots in the War of 66–73’. Journ. of Semitic Studies IV, 1959, 332–55Google Scholar.

8 His theory has close points of contact with the views of R. Eisler, Ίήσους Βασιλεύς, κτλ., 1929.

9 Schürer, op. cit. 1, 1901, 74–105; G. Hölscher, s.v. Josephus, P–W IX, 1916 ff.; R. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus, 1920; Drexler, H., ‘Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des Jüdischen Aufstandes’, Klio XIX, 1924, 277 ff.Google Scholar; H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 1929, etc.

10 Hengel 8–9, with references.

11 cf. Jos., , Vita 342, 358, 366Google Scholar.

12 op. cit., Preface and Part I.

13 BJ IV, 541; cf. Dio (Xiph.) LXVIII, 32, making similar charges against the Jewish rebels under Trajan. Joel, M., Blicke in die Religionsgesch., 1893, II, 153 ffGoogle Scholar. and 165 ff. was able to show that the allegation was probably absent from Dio's original text. Similar atrocities by the Egyptians (Juv., , Sat. XV, 93–115Google Scholar; cf. J. G. Milne, Hist, of Egypt under Roman Rule, 1898, 63) may have been projected upon the Jews by the Egyptians themselves: cf. P. Giss. 24 (Tcherikover, and Fuks, , Corp. Pap. Iud. 11, 1960Google Scholar, no. 457).

14 H. Lichtenstein, Die Fastenrolle, 1922.

15 9, 26.

16 Hist. V, 9; 12.

17 Epit. LXV, 4–7.

18 Arrian, Ap., Diss. IV, 7Google Scholar, 6.

19 Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, from the Judaean Desert (Heb. edn., 1957).

20 Philo, , Quod omnis probus liber 12, 13Google Scholar; Eus., , Praep. evang. VIII, 11Google Scholar; Jos., , BJ 11, 120–161Google Scholar; Ant. XIII 171; xv, 371; XVIII, 18–22; Plin., , HN v, 17Google Scholar.

21 It has been claimed (e.g. by Otto, P-W Suppl. 11, s.v. Herodes, 1913, col. 55) that Judaea was free of Roman tribute under Herod and his sons. I find this difficult to credit; if Julius Caesar, who was highly favourable to the Jews, nevertheless imposed tribute on his ally Hyrcanus II (Jos., , Ant XIV, 201Google Scholar), surely Augustus would not have remitted it. Momigliano found reason to think tribute was imposed: Ricerche sull'organizazzione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano 63 a.C.–70 d.C. (1934), 49–51.

22 Ant. XVI, 154.

23 Tac., , Ann. 11, 42Google Scholar.

24 BJ II, 75. To this episode should relate the ruling of Bab., T.Semahot 2, 12Google Scholar: ‘Whoever has a husband, wife, father or mother who was crucified while he was in a city, should not dwell in that city unless it is as large as Antioch.’ Beloch, Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt, 1886, 245, estimated the population of Antioch under Augustus at 300,000.

25 The prefects: Frova, A., ‘L'iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Cesarea’, Rendic. 1st. Lomb. xcv (1961), 419 ff.Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, in JRS LIV, 1954, 259Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., Stud, in Rom. Government and Law, 1960, 119, 124Google Scholar.

26 Hengel, 211 ff.

27 Ant. XVII, 277; BJ 11, 59.

27a It seems highly unlikely that they were sold up; Josephus' word (Ant. XVIII, 26) ἀποδιδόμενος surely means ‘having leased out’. Augustus may have made presents of various estates to his supporters (cf. for Egypt, Rostovtzeff, Soc. Econ. Hist. R. Emp. 2, 1957, 670 f.), but the wholesale selling-up of crown domains would not have been in harmony with his policy.

28 BJ II, 427.

29 BJ II, 652.

30 BJ II, 297–300.

31 On some of the religious manifestations accompanying the Boudicca revolt, see A. Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain, 1967, 36; 218; 350; 360.

32 cf. RIB 152, at Bath: ‘locum religiosum per insolentiam dirutum virtuti et n(umini) Aug repurgatum …’ Was the rehabilitation in the third century of a remote native prehistoric shrine at Arminghall, Norfolk (see PPS II, 15–16) carried out in defiance of the authorities?

33 Ant. XIV, 158–184. It is probable enough that Hezekiah represented an old local family of land owners. The name appears on a sarcophagus recently discovered in a mausoleum in the north-eastern corner of Galilee; see Kaplan, Y., Eretz Yisrael VIII (Sukenik Memorial Volume, 1967), 104 fGoogle Scholar. (Heb. with Eng. summary). Although the sarcophagus belonged to the late second century, when the mausoleum originated, the name may well have been permanent in the family. It occurs among the Zealots of Masada (Yadin, , IEJ xv, 1965, 112Google Scholar).

34 Ant. XVII, 271; BJ 11, 56.

35 BJ 11, 56.

36 BJ 1, 304–307.

37 BJ 1, 309–313.

38 Boudicca, Decebalus et al.

39 BJ VII, 323–337; 341–388.

40 Schürer, op. cit. 1, 1901, 275–6.

41 Le Judaïsme palestinien I, 1934, 59Google Scholar.

42 Gesch. des Judenthums 1, 1857, 327–328Google Scholar.

43 W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, 1956, who cites several other historians who have noted the affinity between the two movements.

44 de Vaux, R., Rev. bib. LXIII, 1955, 534Google Scholar; 538.

45 G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, 1965, 303–304; 367.

46 Lichtenstein, Die Fastenrolle 347.

47 Ant. XIII, 171.

48 Avi-Yonah, M., IEJ 11, 1952, 1–5Google Scholar; Segal, M. H., Scripta Hierosolymitana IV, 1958, 141–143Google Scholar.

49 Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War etc. 54 ff.

50 I Mace. 3, 46.

51 J. Kromayer, G. Veith, Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer, 1928, 128. Even if there are Roman features in the tactics of the War Scroll, such as the advance and retirement of skirmishers through the gaps of the infantry units (ibid. 148), the general features are, I believe, Hellenistic. The Roman infantry's tactical unit, after all, was at this period 500 strong, except for the leading legionary cohort. I am not sure if the oblong shield, which Yadin uses as a sign of Roman date, had not arrived in Judaea, whether by Roman influence or not, in Maccabean times: cf. II Macc., 10, 79–80; Jos., , Ant. XIII, 94–96Google Scholar, where Jonathan's men, formed into a square, protect themselves from missile fire by locked shields (φραξομένους τοῖς ὄπλοις ὑποδέχεσθαι τὰ βέλη). In at least two cases in which the word Φράσσαω is used in reference to shields (Il. 13, 130; Herod. 9, 61), rectangular shields are meant. Cf. also Ant. XIII, 339 (Jannaeus).

52 BJ 11, 578; cf. Exod. 18, 25.

53 BJ 11, 117–119; VII, 253; Ant. XVIII, 1–22.

54 Ant. XVIII, 4, 9.

55 Ant. XVIII, 23.

56 BJ 11, 118; VII, 253. cf. Luke 11, 1–6.

57 BJ II, 118; 433 (σοφιοστὴς δεινότατος).

58 Eccles. Rabba, on 1: 11.

59 BJ VII, 254.

60 Num. 25, 6–13.

61 Acts 5, 37.

62 Ant. xx, 102; cf. Tac., , Hist. v, 9Google Scholar; 10.

63 Hengel, 338.

64 BJ 11, 447.

65 Hegesippus ap. Euseb., HE III, 206.

66 BJ 11, 118.

67 Hengel, 87.

68 ibid., 94.

69 I Sam. 8, 11–18.

70 Tos., , Babba Qama VII, 5Google Scholar.

71 This does not mean that the Pharisees were apolitical; merely that they included among themselves varying political opinions. Cf. Allon, G., ‘The Attitude of the Pharisees to the Roman Government and the House of Herod’, Scripta Hierosolymitana VII, 1961Google Scholar, esp. 56–58.

72 Ant. XVIII, 5; BJ 11, 163.

73 BJ II, 197; C. Ap. 11, 77.

74 Urbach, E. E., ‘The rabbinical law of idolatry in the second and third centuries in the light of archaeological evidence and historical facts’, IEJ IX, 1959, 238–239Google Scholar.

75 Hengel, 114 ff.; Jos., BJ II, 259Google Scholar, 264; VII, 341; Ant. XVIII, 4, etc.

76 A. Reifenberg, Jewish Coins 2, 1947, 58, nos. 147–149. Kannael, B., BASOR 129, 1953, 18 ff.Google Scholar, has suggested that the Year IV silver coins issued by the revolution and inscribed ligeulat Tziyyon (‘for the redemption of Zion’), were those of Simon bar Giora. Did the legend allude to his social programme?

77 cf. Mekhil., Exod., 14, 2; M. Pes., x, 5.

78 Targum Lam. 2, 22 cited by Strack, and Billerbeck, , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III, 1922–1928, 576Google Scholar.

79 M. Pes. x, 5.

80 BJ IV, 508.

81 Hengel, 123.

82 Exod. 21, 3; M. Quidd. 1, 2; cf. Bab. B. Qama, 129.

83 Deut. 15, 2; M. Shabb. x, 1.

84 Il Sam., 24.

85 Hengel, 134–136.

86 For Seleucid taxes, Jos., , Ant. XII, 142Google Scholar; I Macc., 10, 29–30; for property returns in Judaea under the Ptolemies, Rostovtzeff, , Soc. Econ. Hist. Hell. World2 1, 1964, 340Google Scholar.

87 Levit. 25, 23.

88 Gaius, 2, 21; T. Frank, JRS 1927, 161, argued that it did not apply till Claudius' reign; A. H. M. Jones (Studies in Rom. Government and Law, 1960, 143–9) does not believe it existed until Gaius and even so did not affect policy.

89 Ant. XIV, 202.

90 A senatus consultum only is mentioned (Ant. XIV, 385; 388). But in Ant. XVII, 246 Herod is referred to as φιλὸς καὶ σύμμαχος. Otto (Herodes, 57) does not think this implied a foedus.

91 The comment of R. Isaac on Ps. 103, 20, ‘men of might do his word’, is illuminating, although he lived in the fourth century: ‘Of what does the text speak?… Of those who maintain the Seventh Year (fallow)… He sees his field and vineyard fallow yet pays the annona without a word. Is there a greater hero than this?’

92 It was in Herod's time or a little later that Hillel virtually abolished the septennial cancellation of debts, by the device of the prozbul (M. Sheb. x, 4). This was doubtless good for business and may well have made credit available to the small man. But credit is a two-edged weapon. In 66, when the rising broke out, the Zealots burned the debt-records in the public records office of Jerusalem (BJ II, 42).

93 Ch. II, 25 ff. I have generally followed Hengel. For other discussions whose conclusions do not coincide with his, see Roth, C., Jour. of Semitic Studies, IV, 1959, 333–337Google Scholar; Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 1967, ch. 11.

94 Ant. XVIII, 7.

95 Ulp., , Dig. 48, 13, 7Google Scholar (6).

96 cf. Tac., Agric. 30.

97 BJ 11, 254.

98 Institutes 4, 18, 5.

99 Hengel, 50.

100 M. Makhsh. 1, 6; Lam., Rabba, ad 4–4; para. 7; Avot de-RN 7. It is doubtful if the rabbinical term Siqariqon had any direct relation to the Jewish sicarii. The word, evidently derived from the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et venificis, refers to rabbinical regulations governing the purchase of lands confiscated by the Roman government from Jewish owners on the authority of the Lex Cornelia, and sets restrictions on their acquisition by Jewish purchasers other than the original owners. (M. Gittin v, 6; Tos. Gittin; ibid.; B. Gittin, ibid.; etc.) See Safrai, S., Zion XVII, 1952, 56–64Google Scholar; Gulack, A., Tarbiz v, 1934, 23–27Google Scholar, for a less probable explanation.

101 Avot de-RN 7.

102 BJ VII, 270 τὴν προσηγορίαν αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπ' ἀγαθῷ ζηλουμένων ἐπέθεσαν.

103 Lam. Rabba ad 4:4, para. 7; Avot de-RN 7.

104 M. Sanh. IX, 6.

105 Num. 25, 7.

106 6, 15.

107 1, 13.

108 Refutatio omnium haeresium 9, 26.

109 Also of gentiles: cf. the summary circumcision of the commandant of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem, Metilius, who was spared on condition of judaizing (BJ., II, 454). This man's subsequent career, were it known, would be of interest. Also Jos., Vita 23 (113).

110 This is of course an extreme interpretation of the commandment against images (Exod. 20, 4–5). While I know no text that specifically associates such an attitude with Judah's group, it is entirely logical that this should have been part of their code. Cf. the incident of the tearing down of Herod's eagle from the Temple (Ant. XVII, 149–183), and the demolition of Antipas' palace at Tiberias, adorned with animal figures, at the outbreak of the revolt (Jos., Vita 65). This iconoclasm took on its most pronounced form in Cyrenaica in the revolt of 115–117, see Journ. Jew. Stud. II, 1951, 177–186Google Scholar.

111 Hengel, 72 ff.

112 Justin, , Dial. Tryph. 80, 2Google Scholar; Eus., , HE IV, 227Google Scholar; Arrian, Epict. ap., Diss. IV, 7Google Scholar, 6.

113 Hengel, 60; this is indeed shown by the Wadi Murabba 'at document (Rev. bib. 60, 1953, 276 ff.), a letter in which Ben Kosba orders the recipient to ‘leave the Galileans alone’. These can hardly be Christians, unless we choose to disbelieve the contemporary report of Justin, (Apol. I, 31Google Scholar) that Ben Kosba persecuted them.

114 BJ IV, 402.

115 cf. ‘Ein Geddi's role as supply-base to Ben Kosba.

116 Yadin, and Polotsky, , Bull. Isr. Explor. Soc. XXVI, 1962, 239Google Scholar. The Roman bathhouse at 'Ein Geddi, of military type, and excavated in 1965, yielded coins of the above-mentioned period (Arch. News of the Israel Government Dept. of Antiquities XIII, 1965, 3Google Scholar).

117 BJ IV, 503–507.

118 BJ 11, 442.

119 Illus. Lond. News, 31st Oct., 1964, 6974; IEJ xv, 1965, 105–108; Yadin, Excavation of Masada, 1965, 108.

120 For a bibliography of the controversy to 1967, Brandon, op. cit., 61–62. A second sectarian settlement between Khirbet Qumran and ‘Ein Geddi was identified recently by Mr. Pesah Bar-Adon, the discoverer, who kindly showed me the site.

121 Ant. XIII, 172; XVIII, 11; BJ II, 120–161.

122 BJ VII, 253–274.

123 BJ VII, 329.

124 Philo, , Quod otnnisprobus liber II, 457, 633Google Scholar.

125 BJ VII That John was a solitary dissident from the sect seems improbable; the oaths taken by probationers before entry to the order were such as to make life outside it impossible without the order's consent (BJ 11, 143–144).

126 Ch. Rabin, Studies in the Judaean Scrolls in Memory of E. L. Sukenik, 1957, 104–22 (in Heb.).

127 The Judaean Scrolls, 1965, III ff.

128 Yadin, , IEJ xv, 1965, 72Google Scholar.

129 BJ IV, 560–563.

130 BJ II, 447.

131 BJ V 591.

132 Roth has pointed out (Jour. Sem. Stud. IV, 1959, 346Google Scholar) that Josephus never calls him a Zealot, that he at first supported the aristocratic government (BJ IV, 215–216), and that he was lax in religious observance (BJ VII, 264).

133 BJ II, 480.

134 BJ II, 652.

135 BJ IV, 508.

136 BJ V, 439.

137 BJ V, 309.

138 BJ V, 249.

139 I Macc. 3, 13–26; BJ 11, 521. The actual topography of Beth Horon is such that only at one point can the route be commanded from above on both sides, and precisely this must have been chosen for attack. This being the case, Simon's source of information may well have been local tradition going back to Hasmonaean times. Yet in general the topography of the area is virtually irreconcilable with Josephus' account.

140 BJ VII, 154.

141 Corp. Pap. Iud. 11, no. 153, 11. 95–100, καθάπερ κοινόν τεινα τῆς οἰκουμένης νόσον ἐξεγείροντας; Oros., VII, 27, 6, tertia sub Traiano plaga Iudaeos excitavit; Jos., , BJ VII, 437Google Scholar: Ἠψατο δὲ καὶ τῶν περὶ Κυρήνην πόλεων ἡ τῶν σικαρίων ἀπόνοια καθάπερ νόσος.

142 CJP II. 153 (P. Lond. 1912). loc. cit.; for the interpretation of Tcherikover, Jews of Egypt 3, 1963, 150–55.

143 CPJ II, no. 156 c (A.P.M. 3B), 1l. 21–24; the restoration appears to be by Tcherikover-Fuks.

144 Hengel, 371.

145 Frank, Heichelheim ap., Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome IV, 1938, (Syria), 233Google Scholar.

146 A. Büchler, Der Galiläische Amhaares, 1906. At Masada the Zealots were careful in the payment of tithe to the priests amongst them; this is evident from the ostraka found (Yadin, , IEJ xv, 1965, 112Google Scholar). For the importance of tithes as a source of grievance in seventeenth-century England, see H. N. Brailsford, The Levellers and the English Revolution, 1961, 133–136 and passim.

147 cf. M. Bab. Bat. 1, 1; Eus., , HE III, 20Google Scholar, 1–2, evidencing holdings of less than 1,000 sq. m. and of 39 plethra; Y. Felix, art. ‘Agriculture’ in Encyc. Hebraica XVIII, 1965, cites holdings of 8, 6, ¾ and even ¾ of an acre; contrast Ps.-Aristeas, 119 (circa 200 (B.C.).

148 Baron, op. cit. (above, n. 5) 276 f.—This is a comprehensive and cogent survey of the situation, with full references. Cf. also Klausner, , History of the Second Temple IV, 1950, 74 ffGoogle Scholar. (in Heb.).

149 Matt. 21, 33–42.

150 BJ IV, 319–320: ἠγαπατικὼς τὸ ἰσότιμον καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ταπεινότατους, φιλελεύθερος ἐκτόπως καὶ δημοκρατίας ἐραστής…

151 Burrows, Millar, The Dead Sea Scrolls of Saint Mark II, 1951Google Scholar, Pl. I: ‘and all those who volunteer in truth shall bring together all their knowledge and strength and possessions’ (transl. by the present writer). But the communism of the Yahad has been disputed by Rabin, op. cit. (above n. 126), 116–117. Cf. Orac Sibyll. XII, 350–354 (surely an echo of the Zealot period):

152 Zuckermandel, VIII, 11.

153 Tchalenko, G., Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord 1, 1953, 377 ffGoogle Scholar.

154 Something similar may be suspected at the partially-excavated Galilean Jewish village of Korazin (third–fourth centuries), which had a considerable concentrated group of oil-presses in its south-western quarter, and a group of large public buildings of undefined use associated with the synagogue (Isr. Dept. of Antiquities, Arch. News, III, 1962, 3 ff.Google Scholar; XIII, 1965, 18 f.) (in Heb.).

155 M. Pirkei Avot v, 10.

156 Allon, G., Hist, of Eretz Yisrael in the Periods of the Mishnah and the Talmud II, 1947, 81–82Google Scholar (in Heb.), criticizing Büchler and others. For communally owned fields in Syria, see Libanius, De patrociniis (Förster) XLVIII, 11.

157 IEJ xv, 1965, 118.

158 ibid. 113.

159 ibid. 61, 64.

160 Applebaum, , Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers I, 1967, 107–108Google Scholar (in Heb.).

161 Hengel, 373.

162 Jour. Sem. Stud. IV, 1959, 341–342Google Scholar.

163 W. R. Farmer, op. cit. (n. 43), esp. 194–195. It is also implied by the concentration of all the Zealot groups in Jerusalem, regarded as the focus of the Divine Will.

164 BJ 11, 55.

165 Tac., , Hist. v, 9Google Scholar: ‘Simo quidam regium nomen invaserat’.

166 BJ 11, 444. Menahem's messianic claim is well evidenced by Lam. Rabba I, 16 = Jer. Ber., 5a, 12; Hengel, 301. He is notably the only Zealot leader remembered by the rabbinical scholars, apart from his father, Judah.

167 Hengel, 301.

168 Above, n. 37.

169 BJ III, 355–361; 384.

170 BJ IV, 79–81.

171 VII, 389–401.

172 Epit. LXV, 6.

173 cf. III and IV Macc.; Hengel, 268.

174 Ant. XVIII, 23–25; BJ VII, 417–419.

175 Hist. V, 5; ‘animosque proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum aeternos putant; hinc generandi amor et moriendi contemptus.’

176 Diss. IV, 7, 6.

177 Pauli Sententiae 5, 23, 1. It appears to have been inflicted predominantly on slaves, brigands and pirates, but the degree to which it could be inflicted on free Roman citizens is not clear. On infliction for treason and rebellion, Dig., de Poenis, XLVIII, 191; Dion, v, 52.

178 See the talmudic citation, n. 24.

179 BJ VII, 450.

180 E.g. Ant. XVIII, 23–24; BJ VII, 417–419; cf. II, 153.

181 Ant. XIII, 288–298; cf. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 1959, 254.

182 E.g. Jer., , Ketub. 2, 26Google Scholar, fo. 6; Jer., , Ned. XI, 40Google Scholar, fo. 4. Many other cases are recorded. I owe the present citations to Professor S. Safrai, to whom I am grateful for permission to use them.

183 R. Ishmael, a contemporary of R. 'Aqiva (in Hadrian's time) is found endeavouring to restrict the conditions under which suicide in the face of persecution was permissible. (B. Sanh., 74a; see Y. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, 1961, 83.) The Masada tradition, however, may have survived into the Middle Ages, under the pressure of the Jewish fate. In 1190, after defending themselves for several days in York Castle against the militia and the mob, ninety Jews of a group of a hundred and fifty committed suicide under the exhortation of the R. Yom Tov. The rest were massacred. ‘Let us rather do as our fathers did in the days of old,’ says the rabbi according to one account. Details of the episode, which bears a strong resemblance to the last act as Masada, will be found in H. W. C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins, 1924, 293–41 for a slightly different account, G. G. Coulton, Medieval Panorama, 1938, 361–365. The suicide is factual, but the problem is whether R. Yom Tov or the mediaeval chronicler had read Josephus or Josippon, and if so, which. J. Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England, 1893, 125 n., thinks William of Newbury had read the Latin Josephus, ‘which occurs in all booklists of English Abbey and Cathedral libraries,’ and that this had coloured William's account. The name of the chief pogromist at York is perpetuated in Acaster Malabis, 30 miles south of the city.

184 A consideration of the Zealot influences affecting these risings would require an additional paper. I have discussed the Zealot element in the Trajanic rebellion in my Hebrew book on Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, 1969, 210–23. Y. Devir has lately put forward the view that Ben Kosba derived from the Qumran Sect; a good case may be made for his origin in this or in a parallel current (Y. Devir, Bar Kokhba, the Man and the Messiah, 1964, in Heb.). It is worth mentioning that on the evidence of a document from the Nahal Hever cave, Ben Kosba's followers called themselves ἀδελΦοί, i.e. they were organized in some form of religious order (Lifschitz, B., Bull. Isr. Explor. Soc. xxv, 1961, 72–73Google Scholar).