Between the sword and the faith: The world of the Zealots at the time of the second Temple

“Prefer death to call ‘sir’ to any man.”
(Flavius Josephus, a description of the spirit of the zealots.)

1. What it means to “zealot”

• The word Greek ζῆλος / ζηλωτής (zelotés) means “jealous, passionate”, especially in a religious sense: someone consumed by zeal for God and his Law.
• In Hebrew the term parallel is קנאי / קנאים (qanai / kana'im), “jealous(s)”, as applied to biblical figures such as Pinjás (Fineés) or Elijah, who act violently in the name of God.
• Josephus uses the “zealots” as the name of a specific group in the context of the War First Jewish-Roman, but also uses it as a moral qualification of people “jealous” of the Law.

Result: “zealot” is at the same time a title ideological (“a fanatic, a jealous God”) and the name of a movement of political and religious.

2. Main sources and their limits

1. Flavius Josephus
   • Key works: Jewish antiquities and The jewish war.
   • Was protagonist of the revolt (commander in Galilee), and then moved to the side to roman as a historian at the service of Vespasian and Titus.
   • He speaks of the zealots as the “fourth philosophy” from judaism, together with the pharisees, sadducees and essenes.
   • Problem: Josephus has interest in blame the extremists the catastrophe of 70 to exculpate the majority of the jews and be on good terms with Rome, and his story is strongly ideological.
2. New Testament
   • Mentions “Simon called the Zealot” (Lc 6,15; Acts 1,13), but there the term can simply mean “jealous” or refer to their political affiliation.
3. Rabbinic tradition and other texts
   • Rabbinic texts later mentioned to Judas the Galilean as a leader who taught that God is the only Lord, and relate their doctrine with misfortunes to the people.
   • There is a “history of the zealots” systematic in the Talmud, but echoes of the criticism of the extremists of the war.
4. Problem of historiography
   • Some scholars argue about whether there was really a “party zealot” organized since the time of Judas the Galilean, or if the term was applied retroactively by Josephus to several currents of resistance.

3. Historical context: the period asmoneo to Rome

In order to understand the zealots have to see the arch of the old town:

1. Revolt macabea (s. II.C.)
   • Armed resistance against the domain seleucid, and the impositions hellenistic about the jewish worship.
   • Models: Mattathias and his sons (Maccabees), who use violence “for zeal” of the Law.
   • This legacy of “violent zeal” will be critical to the mentality zealot.
2. Dynasty asmonea and the arrival of Rome
   • The asmoneos become kings and high priests, combining political and religious power.
   • In the 63.C. Pompey enters Jerusalem: starts the roman directly or through kings customers (as Herod).
3. Reorganization of Judea
   • After the death of Herod, Rome, divided his territory. In the year 6 d.C. Judea becomes a roman province with a prefect and imposed the census Quiriniothat triggered a protest led by Judas the Galilean.

“In all are in agreement with the pharisees, except in your passion for freedom.”
(Flavius Josephus, on the ‘fourth philosophy’.)

4. Origin of the movement zealot, Judas the Galilean

According To Josephus:

• Foundation: around the year 6 d.C., Judas the Galilean (or Gamala) and a pharisee, named Zadok start a new stream, which he calls the “fourth philosophy”.
• The central doctrine:
  • God is the only Lord and King.
  • To pay tribute to Rome or to recognize the other lord is a betrayal religious.
  • It is preferable to die rather than submit to a human domain considered illegitimate.
• Josephus affirms that this doctrine “infected nation” and it was a cause of many evils, robbery and murder, and that his teaching caused, indirectly, the war with Rome.

Modern studies attenuate this:

• It is debated whether Judas really founded a “party zealot” organized or if it was one of several leaders of the resistance, elevated by Josephus to “ideological founder” afterwards.

5. Ideology and theology of the zealots

Although we do not have a “manifest” itself, from Josephus and the tradition, we can reconstruct:

1. Monotheism radical political
   • Key Idea: “God alone is King”.
   • Any form of sovereignty to foreign " (Rome) is illegitimate and a sacrilege.
   • Loyalty policy is merged with the loyalty of religion.
2. Zeal for the Law, and purity
   • Be inspired by examples of “jealous” biblical:
     • Pinjás (No. 25) that kills the israelite man and the midianite “by zeal to YHWH”.
     • Elijah vs. the prophets of Baal.
   • The logic is: religious violence it is justified to remove the idolatry and betrayal.
3. Attitude to martyrdom
   • Josephus stresses that the followers of Judas were willing to withstand torture and deaths appalling before you call “sir” to the emperor or to pay tribute with political recognition.
4. Relationship with the Torah
   • In general, Josephus says that “in all other respects agree with the pharisees”, but added an insistence absolute political freedom as a religious commandment.

In summary: his theology becomes the resistance anti-roman in a sacred duty.

“Was regarded as a coward who accepted to pay tribute to the emperor.”
(Description josefiana of the rejection of the tribute.)

6. Organization and internal currents

6.1. What game is structured or diffuse network?

• Josephus presents to the zealots as a “sect” at the level of the pharisees and sadducees.
• Modern research tends to view them as more of a current resistance grouping:
  • peasants,
  • young militants urban,
  • sectors radicalized by the clergy,
  • local military leaders,
    more than a game with a stable structure.

6.2. The assassins: the wing extremist

• The sicarii (Latin sica, dagger) were a subgroup especially violent, expert in murders with knives hidden in crowds.
• Acting against:
  • roman authorities,
  • collaborators jews (priests, elders, etc).
• Josephus describes its appearance around the government of Félix (50 d.C.).
• In the final phase of the war is associated with Masada, which resisted until the 73 d.C.

7. Relationship with other streams of judaism of the Second Temple

1. Pharisees
   • Share an emphasis on the Law and piety.
   • Core difference: most farisea does not adopt a line systematically insurrection against Rome; many accept a tense co-existence.
   • The zealots adopting a harder line position: the submission policy to Rome is unacceptable.
2. Sadducees
   • Priestly aristocracy is linked to the Temple and often collaborationist with Rome.
   • For the zealots, many sadducees are traitors and white legitimate violence.
3. Essenes / community type Qumran
   • Reject the Temple official to be corrupted.
   • But his strategy is more separatist and eschatological (wait for divine intervention) that guerrilla.
   • The zealots, however, are betting on the armed action direct.

Josephus emphasizes the three sects “classic” and presents the zealots as the “fourth philosophy”, extremist and fatal for the people.

“Extremism can save an identity... or destroy a nation.”

8. Activity prior to the Great Revolt (6-66 d.C.)

The period between the census of 6 and the revolt of 66 is marked by:

• Sporadic lifting and bands rebel:
  • guerrillas local in Galilee and Judea,
  • attacks on caravans, debt collectors, large property owners.
• Rome responds with:
  • crucifixion massive,
  • selective repression of leaders.
• These actions are not always formally “zelotas”, but expressing the same weather resistance that will culminate in the 66.

9. The zealots in the First War Judeo-Romana (66-73 d.C.)

9.1. Outbreak of the revolt (66 d.C.)

Immediate causes:

• Abuse of the attorney Gessius Florus in the management of the Treasury of the Temple.
• Conflicts greco-jews in Caesarea and other cities.
• Fiscal stresses and religious accumulated.

Answer:

• The revolt begins with the expulsion of the roman garrison of Jerusalem and the destruction of the garrison at Masada (where you take hold of the fortress).
• Sectors “moderate” try to negotiate, but the radical factions (zealots, sicarii and other leaders) are imposed.

9.2. Factions zelotas in Jerusalem

Josephus describes a landscape chaotic in Jerusalem:

• Eleazar ben Simon, John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora as leaders, rivals within the field of radical nationalist.
• Internal struggles and civil war within the city while the roman army was approaching.
• Zealots and allies take the Temple and they run to the opponents (including priests), burn deposits of grain, etc, contributing to the famine during the siege.

9.3. Destruction of the Temple (70 ce.C.)

• In the 70 d.C., Titus takes Jerusalem:
  • the Second Temple is destroyed,
  • the city razed to the ground,
  • hundreds of thousands of people dead or enslaved,
  • beginning of the dispersion mass and the transformation of judaism into a model rabbinical without a Temple.
• In the narrative of Josephus, the obstinacy of the zealots it is one of the main causes of this disaster.

10. Assassins and Masada: the last bastion

• After the fall of Jerusalem, there remain pockets of resistance:
  • one of the most emblematic is Masada, fortress, in the Judean desert.
• There takes refuge with a group of sicarii under the command of Eleazar ben Yair.
• The site of Masada (72-73 d.C.) ends –according to Josephus– a collective suicide a few 960 defenders, who prefer death rather than fall slaves of Rome.

Historiográficamente:

• The accuracy of numerical and narrative of the story of Josephus is discussed, but the image of Masada became modern symbol of the spirit zealot: “Masada shall not fall again.”

11. Zealots and New Testament

1. Simon the Zealot
   • Appears in the lists of the Twelve (Lk 6,15; Acts 1,13).
   • Discussion:
     • What means “a member of the party zealot”?
     • Or do you simply “man jealous / zealous”?
   • Many exegetes remind us that the movement as such, it consolidates newly-about 6 d.C. and hatch after a 66, so that it could be more of a nickname of character that affiliation with an organization already formed.
2. Paul as “zealots”
   • In Galatians 1.14 and Facts 22,3, Paul is defined as “more zealots (jealous) of traditions” than their contemporaries.
   • Some authors have proposed that Paul would have had links with the movement zealot, but most see the term as “fervent”not as a label partisan.

Conclusion: the allusions in the NT confirms that the language of zeal I was very present, but does not allow the reconstruction of a political history detailed the movement.

12. The zealots in the rabbinic tradition

• The rabbis later, writing in a judaism post-Templethey tend to see the revolt and the excesses zealots as the cause of the disaster.
• Refer to:
  • Judas the Galilean as the initiator of a doctrine dangerous.
  • “Jealous” that led to “robbery and murder,” and brought it misfortune.
• In parallel, the ideal of the “zeal for God” do not go away, but it's going to reinterpret key ethical and legalmore than military.

13. Discussions by modern zealots

The current research discusses several key points:

1. Do a continuous movement from Judas to the 66?
   • Josephus suggests a continuity in doctrinal from Judas (6 d.C.) until the leaders of 66-73.
   • Some historians believe that this is a simplification retroactivethere were different uprisings and bands, not a party cohesive.
2. Responsibility for the war
   • Josephus guilt strongly to the “fourth philosophy, and the zealots.
   • Others see the war as a result of:
     • policies roman brutal,
     • tensions socio-economic,
     • internal conflicts among elites, jewish,
       in addition to the extremism zealot.
3. Exact relationship between the zealots and sicarii
   • Some distinguish them:
     • zealots = current national-religious wider;
     • hit = terrorist cell specialized in assassinations.
   • Others see more fused, especially in the final phase of the war.
4. Degree of popular support
   • Josephus speaks of the great influence, but also a rejection by the other jews.
   • There was probably a significant support among popular sectors and young people, and a lot of ambivalence in the elites, religious and economic.

14. Historical legacy and interpretation later

• For the later rabbinical judaism, the main lesson is that the violent extremism it can lead to destruction of national.
• For some movements in modern, especially nationalists, the zealots have become symbol of resistance and “no surrender to the empire.”
• In historical research, her figure is to understand:
  • how the religion and politics blend in contexts of imperial domination,
  • how the language of the religious zeal can legitimize both the heroic resistance as the internal violence.

15. Synthesis

1. What were
   • A jewish movement of the era of the Second Temple, cutting nationalist-religiouswhich required the armed resistance against Rome and rejected any sovereignty that was not of God.
2. Source
   • Associated with Judas the Galilean about 6 d.C.in reaction to the roman census of Quirinio and to the full integration of Judea as a roman province.
3. Ideology
   • God is the only King.
   • To pay tribute and submit to Rome is a betrayal of religion.
   • The violence can be a legitimate means of “zeal for the Law”.
4. Internal relations
   • Closely related to the pharisees in doctrine, but much more radical in the political dimension.
   • In tension with the sadducees and the elite priestly near Rome.
   • Linked to the hitmen, a wing of political assassins.
5. Historic role as a key
   • Protagonists (along with other radical factions) of the Primera Guerra Judeo-Romana (66-73 d.C.).
   • Involved in the defence and internal war in Jerusalem before the destruction of the Temple in 70.
   • Represented in Masada as the symbol end of resistance to the death.
6. Sources and difficulties
   • We depend almost entirely of Flavius Josephus, an author ideologically biased.
   • There are discussions of modern on if you were a party structured or a label applied to a number of currents of resistance.
7. Relation with early christianity
   • The NT mentions Simon the Zealot and called “zealots” to the religious zeal of Paul, which reflects the climate ideological, but does not allow you to claim a membership in organic to the party.
8. Global assessment
   • The zealots were a radical response the oppression of roman and internal collaboration.
   • His legacy is ambivalent: on the one hand, a symbol of absolute fidelity to God; the other for example the cost devastating violent extremism in a context of political and religious explosive.