Unconvinced about Jesus: a venue for seekers and skeptics exploring the life and teachings of Jesus.

Format: 1. Launch Pad – a ten minute table conversation to warm up to the topic. 2. Explore – a firsthand look at a Gospel text with the help of an unformatted manuscript. 3. Question/Answer- the heartbeat of UNCONVINCED is open-ended inquiry into the life and teachings of Jesus… or anything the class is curious about. Bring your questions! 4. Sign Off –What are your doubts about Jesus? To you is Jesus believable or unconvincing?

Launch Pad: discuss the following at your table. Trust for institutions such as the Church or government has always been a point of struggle for people. What kinds of things break your trust in politicians or church leaders? Why is it difficult to trust powerful people or institutions?

Introduction: Being unconvinced is a two way street. When Jesus began his ministry he introduced the arrival of the Kingdom of God! Quite a statement of power! How could Jesus validate a claim like that? This chapter of Unconvinced considers the options Jesus had at his disposal to build the base of popular credibility for his ministry. Who would he turn to in order to validate his claims? Which groups would be convinced of his vision for the Kingdom of God? Jesus was utterly unconvincing to every group, every faction and every political player of his day. And the feeling was certainly mutual on Jesus’ part!

Jesus and Power – Did Jesus want the help of groups that had power?

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. (John 2:23-25 ESV)

13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten. 14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, "This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!" 15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. (John 6:13-15 ESV)

One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?" 3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me: 4 John's baptism-- was it from heaven, or of human origin?" 5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet." 7 So they answered, "We don't know where it was from." 8 Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things." (Luk 20:1-8 NIV)

20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 "Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?" "Caesar's," they replied. 25 He said to them, "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. (Luk 20:20-26 NIV)

Groups and people who may have wanted to endorse Jesus (but didn’t).

1. Pharisees: Characteristic of the Pharisaic position was their adherence to a body of traditional material (Gk paradosis) handed down “from the fathers,” which defined correct behavior. Obedience to the Torah would renew God’s covenant blessings including the coming of the Messiah. Pharisees were the ultimate good guys. Pro-Yahweh. Pro-Torah. Anti-Roman Empire.

2. Sadducees: Least popular with ordinary Jews. Landed aristocrats of Jerusalem. “The most like Washington D.C. lawyers”. Refused the doctrine of the Resurrection. Realists eager to negotiate peace with Rome, against the Pharisees. Mark 12:18-27 – discussion about the woman with 7 husbands… “you are quite wrong”. Aligned politically w. Herodians.

3. Essenes: Collection of devout Jewish followers who decided to withdraw into community Khirbet Qumran was their headquarters – where the Dead Sea Scrolls later found. Leader known as The Teacher of Righteousness. Held that the Temple and the priesthood were corrupt. Waited for God’s holy wrath (not blessing) to come down (reminds you of Jonah) God would bring his kingdom on earth in wrath in response to utter failure of Israel to live up to its mission. Part Torah observance, part military holy warfare.

4. Zealots in the Maccabean tradition: 1&2 Maccabees – deuterocanonical writings from intertestamental period. Mattathias of Modein and his sons Judah the Hammer, Simon and Jonathan Maccabeus. Maccabean revolt against Syrian overlords in 167-164 BC. Fought to regain control of the Temple – celebration of Hanukkah commemorates this. Use of bloodshed and violence to recapture control of the Temple. Simon the Zealot was one such Holy Warrior! And was one of Jesus’ 12 Disciples. Pilate was initially afraid that Jesus was a Zealot.

5. Herod Antipas (4 BC to 39 AD) and the Herodians: tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, answered strictly to Rome, under Pilate’s jurisdiction. He is most known for his beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17–29; Luke 3:19–20). When Herod heard of Jesus he thought he was JB raised from the dead! Pilate sent Jesus to Herod during his trial, but was not legally obligated to do so. He wanted to extricate himself from an awkward situation in which the Jews wanted to crucify Jesus (Pilate felt that he was innocent). The Herodians were influential partisans of the Herodian dynasty. The Herodians and the Pharisees sought to destroy Jesus (Mk 3:6). And to incriminate him regarding the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Mt 22:16 par. Mk 12:13).

6. Pilate: Appointed by Tiberius the Emperor in AD 26. In charge of the army of occupation stationed in Caesarea. Full judicial authority of Capital Punishment (over the Sanhedrin). He appointed the high priests and controlled the Temple treasury. Pilate authorized the death of Jesus (Tacitus, Annals 15. 44). The verdict of the NT is that he was a weak man, ready to serve expediency rather than principle. The judicial murder of the Saviour was due less to a desire to please the Jewish authorities than to fear of imperial displeasure if Tiberius heard of further unrest in Judaea.

Question/Answer - What questions do you have about Jesus from today’s discussion? What do you think belief in Jesus is about at its core? Do you think the fact that Jesus never sought political or religious endorsements adds to or takes away from his credibility as a leader? Does Jesus’ use of power and authority fit with his claim to be the Son of God/ the Messiah?

Summary 1. Jesus did not need ______authority to accomplish his mission. 2. Groups and individuals in Jesus day were operating from a vastly different vision of the ______of ______than Jesus. 3. Being convinced of Jesus is only half the matter. Jesus had to also be convinced of the ______and ______of people before he entrusted himself to them. The same is true today!

Sign Off Would Jesus be a convincing leader if he had to operate in today’s religious and political climate? What would make you trust or mistrust a spiritual leader like Jesus? In your opinion, do groups or Churches that try to use Jesus for their advantage damage the credibility of Christianity beyond repair? What would you like to see the Church do to rebuild credibility today?

After today’s discussion, where would you place yourself on a chart like the one below?

Answer Key for Summary section above:

Summary 1. Jesus did not need ______authority to accomplish his mission. 2. Groups and individuals in Jesus day were operating from a vastly different vision of the ______of ______than Jesus. 3. Being convinced of Jesus is only half the matter. Jesus had to also be convinced of the ______and ______of people before he entrusted himself to them. The same is true today!

Study Notes

Pilate and the Roman Empire Appointed by Tiberius the Emperor in AD 26 5th Praefectus of Judaea In charge of the army of occupation stationed in Caesarea Local fortress in Jerusalem (Antonia) Full judicial authority of Capital Punishment (over the Sanhedrin) He appointed the high priests and controlled the Temple treasury Pilate authorized the death of Jesus (Tacitus, Annals 15. 44) used money from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct to convey water to the city from a spring some 40 km away. Pilate punished them severely for their protesting – Luke 13 reference? Philo can find no good thing to say of Pilate: in De Legatione ad Gaium 301 he describes him as ‘by nature rigid and stubbornly harsh’ and ‘of spiteful disposition and an exceeding wrathful man’, and speaks of ‘the bribes, the acts of pride, the acts of violence, the outrages, the cases of spiteful treatment, the constant murders without trial, the ceaseless and most grievous brutality’ of which the Jews might accuse him The verdict of the NT is that he was a weak man, ready to serve expediency rather than principle, whose authorization of the judicial murder of the Saviour was due less to a desire to please the Jewish authorities than to fear of imperial displeasure if Tiberius heard of further unrest in Judaea. This is made abundantly evident by his mockery of the Jews in the wording of the superscription (Jn. 19:19-22). His first act of provocation against the Jews was the introduction into Jerusalem of Roman standards with embossed figures of the emperor. Previous prefects had been careful not to offend Jewish religious views by not allowing any sign of emperor worship when the troops entered Jerusalem. This act of Pilate aroused great indignation on the part of the Jews, and as a result they sent a delegation to Caesarea who pled for five days for removal of the standards1

NT New Testament 1Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 615 The final conflict recorded by Josephus is one that caused Pilate’s dismissal. In A.D. 36 a Samaritan false prophet promised his followers that he would show them the sacred vessels which, according to tradition, Moses had buried on Mount Gerizim. Many believed him and gathered with arms at a village at the foot of the mountain, but Pilate blocked the projected route with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry. Some of the followers were killed in battle, others were imprisoned, still others fled. 2

3. Trial of Jesus. The Jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate early on Friday morning of passion week, accusing Jesus of setting himself up as king (Mt 27:1–2, 11–14; Mk 15:1–5; Lk 23:1–5; John 18:28–38). When Pilate found no wrong in Jesus, and when the Jewish leaders suggest ed that Jesus had caused trouble both in Judea and Galilee, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas who was ruler over Galilee (Lk 23:6–12). Herod took no action and sent him back to Pilate, who then wanted to release him. However, Pilate finally gave in to the pressure of the Jewish leaders when they threatened him with the accusation of not being a friend of Caesar (Mt 27:15–26; Mk 15:6–15; Lk 23:13–25; Jn 18:39–19:15). Hence the Gospels portray Pilate in the trial of Jesus as one who was weak and willing to comply with the wishes of the Jewish leaders against his own desires. This profile of Pilate’s character is quite different from that given by Philo and Josephus. Historical explanations vary according to the dating of the crucifixion. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30, Pilate may have been trying to be conciliatory toward Herod Antipas (see Herodian Dynasty) because of the little-known episode of Pilate mixing the blood of the Galileans—Antipas’ citizens—with their sacrifices (Lk 13:1). If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33, the removal of Pilate’s mentor Sejanus, and his failure to ingratiate himself with the emperor, may have broken Pilate’s backbone and left him fighting for political survival. He might then have handed Jesus over to Herod Antipas in order to prevent Herod from making another unfavorable report to Tiberius as he had done within the last few months (as one of the sons of Herod). In this event, Herod Antipas took no action and handed Jesus back to Pilate so that Pilate could gain no advantage, for Herod also had been a friend of Sejanus. One further problem needs to be addressed. Luke states that Pilate and Herod became friends from that day forward (Lk 23:12). If this took place in A.D. 30 (see Chronology), it would imply that the settlement between Pilate and Antipas regarding Pilate’s slaying of the Galileans accounts for the enmity that was overcome (Lk 23:12). But there was a fierce battle after Sejanus’s death in A.D. 31, and thus some would conclude that if Jesus was executed in A.D. 30, Luke is in error regarding the relationship between Pilate and Herod. Another criticism from scholars holding to A.D. 30 crucifixion is that the portrayal of an anemic Pilate in the Gospels (compared with the Pilate of Josephus and Philo) betrays the anti-Semitic bias of the Evangelists (see Anti-Semitism). Pilate is absolved from blame and the Jewish people are held responsible for Jesus’ death (see Death of Jesus). However, if Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33, the reconciliation of the enmity between Pilate and Herod Antipas becomes more historically realistic. The Jews, having only recently received the news of Sejanus’s death (possibly during the winter of 32/33 or early 33), threatened Pilate that if he did not release Jesus, he was not a friend of Caesar (Jn 19:12). Pilate realized the reverse of this was that the Jews would regard him as still being a friend of Sejanus and/or friendly toward his policies which Tiberius had now repudiated. Hence Pilate’s compliance with the Jews during the trial of Jesus would be fully understandable in light of recent events that made him more cautious.3

PILATE. Pontius Pilatus was a Roman of the equestrian, or upper middle-class, order: his praenomen is not known, but his nomen, Pontius, suggests that he was of Samnite extraction and his cognomen, Pilatus, may have been handed down by military forbears. Little is known of his career before AD 26, but in that year (see

2Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 615 3Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 616

AD anno Domini P. L. Hedley in JTS 35, 1934, pp. 56-58) the emperor Tiberius appointed him to be the fifth praefectus (hēgemōn, Mt. 27:2, etc.; the same title is used of Felix in Acts 23 and Festus in Acts 26) of Judaea. Evidence of this title was discovered in 1961 on an inscription at Caesarea, and E. J. Vardaman (JBL 88, 1962, p. 70) suggests that this title was used in Pilate’s earlier years, being replaced by procurator (the title used by Tacitus and Josephus) later. In accordance with a recent reversal in the policy of the Senate (in AD 21— Tacitus, Annals 3. 33-34) Pilate took his wife with him (Mt. 27:19). As procurator he had full control in the province, being in charge of the army of occupation (1 ala—c. 120 men—of cavalry, and 4 or 5 cohorts—c. 2,500-5,000 men—of infantry), which was stationed at Caesarea, with a detachment on garrison duty at Jerusalem in the fortress of Antonia. The procurator had full powers of life and death, and could reverse capital sentences passed by the Sanhedrin, which had to be submitted to him for ratification. He also appointed the high priests and controlled the Temple and its funds: the very vestments of the high priest were in his custody and were released only for festivals, when the procurator took up residence in Jerusalem and brought additional troops to patrol the city. Even pagan historians mention Pilate only in connection with his authorization of the death of Jesus (Tacitus, Annals 15. 44): his only appearance on the stage of history is as procurator of Judaea. Josephus relates (Ant. 18.55; BJ 2.169) that Pilate’s first action on taking up his appointment was to antagonize the Jews by setting up the Roman standards, bearing images of the emperor, at Jerusalem: previous procurators had avoided using such standards in the holy city. Because of the determined resistance of their leaders in spite of threats of death, he yielded to their wishes after 6 days and removed the images back to Caesarea. Philo (De Legatione ad Gaium 299ff.) tells how Pilate dedicated a set of golden shields in his own residence at Jerusalem. These bore no image, only an inscription with the names of the procurator and the emperor, but representations were made to Tiberius, who sensibly ordered them to be set up in the temple of Roma et Augustus at Caesarea (cf. P. L. Maier, ‘The Episode of the Golden Roman Shields at Jerusalem’, HTR 62, 1969, pp. 109ff.). Josephus (Ant. 18.60; BJ 2.175) and Eusebius (EH 2. 7) allege a further grievance of the Jews against Pilate, in that he used money from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct to convey water to the city from a spring some 40 km away. Tens of thousands of Jews demonstrated against this project when Pilate came up to Jerusalem, presumably at the time of a festival, and he in return sent his troops in disguise against them, so that a large number were slain. It is generally considered that this riot was caused by the Galileans mentioned in Lk. 13:1-2 (whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices), and C. Noldius (De Vita et Gestis Herodum, 1660, 249) claimed that Herod’s enmity against Pilate (Lk. 23:12) arose from the fact that Pilate had slain some of Herod’s subjects. This explains Pilate’s subsequent care (Lk. 23:6-7) to send Jesus to be tried before Herod. It is not known whether the tower at Siloam which collapsed (Lk. 13:4) was part of this aqueduct. Pilate finally over-reached himself by the slaughter of a number of Samaritans who had assembled at Mt Gerizim in response to the call of a deceiver who had promised to show them that Moses had hidden the sacred vessels there. In spite of the obvious falsehood of this claim (Moses had never crossed Jordan: some consider that there is a textual error, Mōÿseōs for Ōseōs, and Josephus is referring to the Samaritan tradition that Uzzi the high priest (1 Ch. 6:6) had hidden the ark and other sacred vessels in Mt Gerizim), a great multitude came armed to the mountain, and Pilate surrounded and routed them, capturing many and executing their ringleaders. A Samaritan delegation went with a protest to Vitellius, who was then governor of Syria, and he ordered Pilate to answer this accusation of the Jews before the emperor, ordering Marcellus to Judaea in Pilate’s place (Jos., Ant. 18.85-89). Pilate was on his journey to Rome when Tiberius died (AD 37). (Cf. E. M. Smallwood, ‘The Date of the Dismissal of Pontius Pilate from Judaea’, JJS 5, 1954, p. 12ff.) We know nothing of the outcome of the trial, but Eusebius (EH 2. 7) preserves a report of otherwise unknown Gk. annalists that Pilate was forced to commit suicide during the reign of Gaius (AD 37-41).

JTS Journal of Theological Studies JBL Journal of Biblical Literature c circa (Lat.), about, approximately Ant Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews BJ Josephus, Jewish Wars ff and the following (verses, etc.) cf confer (Lat.), compare HTR Harvard Theological Review EH Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Jos Josephus JJS Journal of Jewish Studies Gk Greek The above incidents are all related by Josephus or Philo. E. Stauffer (Christ and the Caesars, E.T. 1955, pp. 119f.) draws attention to a further instance of provocation of the Jews by Pilate. According to G. F. Hill (Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine, 1914), the procurators minted small copper coins to meet local needs in Palestine. Normally these bore symbolic designs of natural features, such as trees and ears of corn, in deference to the second commandment. In AD 29-31 Pilate issued coins bearing imperial religious insignia, the lituus, or augur’s staff, and the patera, or pagan libation bowl. Such issues ceased after AD 31, and the British Museum has a coin of Pilate on which his successor Felix appears to have overstamped the staff with a palmbranch, though Y. Meshorer (Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period, 1967) states that Felix also produced coins with symbols of a provocative nature, such as Roman weapons, which underlined the Roman subjugation of Judaea. Philo can find no good thing to say of Pilate: in De Legatione ad Gaium 301 he describes him as ‘by nature rigid and stubbornly harsh’ and ‘of spiteful disposition and an exceeding wrathful man’, and speaks of ‘the bribes, the acts of pride, the acts of violence, the outrages, the cases of spiteful treatment, the constant murders without trial, the ceaseless and most grievous brutality’ of which the Jews might accuse him. The verdict of the NT is that he was a weak man, ready to serve expediency rather than principle, whose authorization of the judicial murder of the Saviour was due less to a desire to please the Jewish authorities than to fear of imperial displeasure if Tiberius heard of further unrest in Judaea. This is made abundantly evident by his mockery of the Jews in the wording of the superscription (Jn. 19:19-22). It is most unfortunate that we do not know anything of his record apart from his government of the Jews, towards whom he would appear to have shown little understanding and even less liking. For an interesting discussion of the significance of the inclusion of ‘suffered under Pontius Pilate’ in Christian creeds see S. Liberty, ‘The Importance of Pontius Pilate in Creed and Gospel’, JTS 45, 1944, pp. 38- 56.There are a number of Acta Pilati in existence: none of which is considered to be genuine. BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. L. Maier, Pontius Pilate, 1968. 4

Herod Antipas (4 B.C.-A.D. 39). 4.1. Antipas’s Realm. Herod Antipas, the younger brother of Archelaus, was born c. 20 B.C. He was made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and ruled from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. These were the territories where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their minis tries. On his return from Rome Antipas had to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed at the feast of Pentecost in 4 B.C. Like his father he founded cities. He rebuilt Sepphoris (c. A.D. 8–10), the largest city in Galilee and the capital of his territories until he built Tiberias. Joseph, Mary’s husband, living in Nazareth only four miles SSW of Sepphoris may well have used his skill as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) during its rebuilding. The second city Antipas rebuilt was Livias (or Julias) of Perea in honor of Augustus’s wife Livia. This was completed c. A.D. 13 (Josephus Ant. 18.2.1 §27). Although the Herodian family had built twelve cities, Tiberias was the first city in Jewish history to be founded within the municipal pattern of the Greek polis. In the process of building the city an ancient cemetery was struck, and subsequently Anti pas had difficulty in populating it because the Jews regarded it as an unclean area. Antipas offered free houses and lands as well as exemption from taxes for the first few years for anyone who would move into the new city. Named in honor of the emperor Tiberius, it was completed around A.D. 25 and served as Antipas’s capital (Josephus Ant. 18.2.3 §§36–38). 4.2. Antipas’s Reign. As far as Rome was concerned Herod Antipas was a good ruler who reigned over the territories of Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. 4.2.1. Antipas and Archelaus. The only important recorded event early in Antipas’s reign was the deposition of his brother Archelaus in A.D. 6. Together with his brother Philip the tetrarch and a Jewish and Samaritan delegation, he went to Rome to complain about Archelaus to Tiberius (Josephus Ant. 17.13.2 §§342–44; J.W. 2.7.3 §111). Although he hoped to receive the title of king, Tiberius allowed Antipas to have the dynastic title of Herod (cf. Josephus J.W. 2.9.1 §167; Ant. 18.2.1 §27), which was significant for both his subjects and the political and social circles of the Roman world. 4.2.2. Antipas and John the Baptist. In the Gospels Herod Antipas is most known for his imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3–12; Mk 6:17–29; Lk 3:19–20; Josephus Ant. 18.5.2 §§116–19).

E.T English translation f and the following (verse, etc.) NT New Testament 4Wood, D. R. W. ; Marshall, I. Howard: New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1996, S. 929 Ant. Antiquities of the Jews J.W. Jewish Wars Antipas had been married to the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, a marriage probably arranged by Augustus in order to gain peace between Jews and Arabs and provide a buffer zone between Rome and the Parthians. This marriage would have taken place before Augustus’s death in A.D. 14. When Antipas travelled to Rome around A.D. 29, he visited his brother Herod (Philip), who apparently lived in one of the coastal cities of Palestine. While there he fell in love with his niece as well as his brother’s wife, Herodias. She agreed to marry Antipas when he returned from Rome, provided that he divorce his first wife (Josephus Ant. 18.5.1 §§109–10). Antipas’s first wife learned of the plan and fled to her father, Aretas IV, who considered the matter a personal insult and later retaliated against Antipas. When Antipas married Herodias, John the Baptist boldly criticized him for marrying his brother’s wife, and as a result he was imprisoned by Antipas. The Mosaic Law prohibited a man from marrying a brother’s wife (Lev 18:16; 20:21), except in the case of levirate marriages (Deut 25:5; Mk 12:19). Since Antipas’s brother had a daughter, Salome, and, more pointedly, his brother was still living, the levirate marriage did not apply. There is a problem in identifying Herodias’s first husband. The Gospels designate him as Philip (Mt 14:3; Mk 6:17), but Josephus lists him as Herod, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, daughter of Simon the high priest (Josephus Ant. 18.5.1 §109). Since the Herodian family line is complicated, many think that the Gospel writers confused this Herod with Philip the tetrarch who later married Herodias’s daughter, Salome. However, although this may seem plausible at first, it is untenable for several reasons. First, the Gospels would be guilty of three historical blunders, namely (1) confusing this Herod with his half-brother Philip the tetrarch, (2) making Philip the tetrarch the husband of Herodias instead of the husband of her daughter, Salome, and (3) assuming that Salome was the daughter of Philip the tetrarch who, according to Josephus, had no children. These errors would be incredible in the light of the Gospel writers’ familiarity with other historical details of the era. Furthermore, the early Christian community included people like Joanna, wife of Chuza, Antipas’s financial minister (Lk 8:3), and Manaen, a close friend of Antipas (Acts 13:1), who would have known the details and would have prevented such historical error. Third, some argue that Herod the Great would not have two sons with the same name. But this is untenable because, although the two sons had the same father, they had different mothers. This is substantiated by the fact that Herod the Great did have two sons named Antipas/Antipater and two sons named Her od, all of whom had different mothers. Fourth, it is highly probable that Herodias’s first husband was called both Herod and Philip or, in other words, Herod Philip. Although some would argue that double names were not used, no one argues that Herod of Acts 12:1, 6, 11, 19–21 is the Agrippa of Josephus or that Archelaus is Herod Archelaus. Double names were used of emperors like Caesar Augustus. Fifth, if the Evangelists intended that Herodias’s former husband was actually Philip the tetrarch, why did they not call him “Philip the tetrarch” as they had called Herod Antipas first “tetrarch” and then “king” within the same pericope (cf. Mt 14:1, 9; Mk 6:14, 26)? Therefore, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the Philip in the Gospels and the Herod in Josephus are one and the same person; otherwise it would be hopelessly confusing. Antipas’s imprisonment of John the Baptist was not enough for Herodias. At the appropriate time, probably Antipas’s birthday, at Machaerus in Perea, Herodias arranged for a banquet for Antipas in order to eliminate John the Baptist. When Herodias’s daughter danced before the guests, Antipas was overwhelmed and promised under oath to give her anything she wanted, up to half of his kingdom. With the advice of her mother, Salome asked for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Although Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, he granted the request to save face before his guests. John was beheaded in A.D. 31 or 32. 4.2.3. Antipas and Jesus. Antipas’s relationship to Jesus is seen in three events. First, Antipas heard of Jesus’ ministry and concluded, with some irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1–2; Mk 6:14–16; Lk 9:7–9). Antipas had silenced John the Baptist’s movement, and now there appeared to be a more successful people’s preacher on the horizon. Hence, Antipas concluded that it was John the Baptist all over again. Antipas wanted to see Jesus, but Jesus withdrew from his territories. Antipas did not want to use force, fearing that his citizens would again resent his treatment as they had with his treatment of John the Baptist. The second incident was Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem. While in Antipas’s territories, some of the Pharisees came to warn Jesus that he should leave because Antipas wanted to kill him (Lk 13:31–33). Jesus told them to “go tell that fox” that he would continue his ministry of casting out demons and healing for a short time longer, and when he had finished he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The third event was Jesus’ trial by Antipas in A.D. 33 (Lk 23:6–12; see Trial of Jesus). Although some scholars think this pericope is legendary because it is not mentioned in the other Gospels, its occurrence in Luke’s Gospel makes historical sense. Luke was writing to Theophilus, perhaps a Roman official, who would have been interested in the relationships between the Herods and the prefects of Judea, especially since this pericope reports the reconciliation between Antipas and Pilate (Lk 23:12; see Pontius Pilate). Since the account reports no progress in the trial, it is understandable why the other Gospel writers left it out. Some scholars think the source for this incident is from the Gospel of Peter. But that Gospel presents no real parallel with Luke’s account of Antipas’s trial of Jesus. In fact, the Gospel of Peter holds Antipas responsible for Jesus’ death, whereas there is nothing of this in Luke. In Luke’s account Pilate (see Pontius Pilate), knowing Antipas was in Jerusalem for the Passover and hearing that Jesus was from Antipas’s territory, Galilee, sent Jesus to him. Pilate was not legally obligated to do so, but he wanted to extricate himself from an awkward situation in which the Jews wanted to crucify Jesus while Pilate felt that he was innocent. Furthermore, Pilate needed to improve his relationship with Antipas. It had been strained by his massacre of some of Antipas’s subjects (Lk 13:1), and it was further aggravated when Antipas reported to Tiberius the trouble Pilate had caused the Jews when he brought the votive shields to Jerusalem. Subsequently, Tiberius had ordered their immediate removal c. A.D. 32 (Philo Leg. Gai. 299–304). Hence, Pilate had overstepped his bounds and needed to appease Antipas. On the other hand, Antipas did not want to give Pilate any reason to report him to the emperor, and so after mocking Jesus he sent him back to Pilate without comment, thereby paving the road for reconciliation between the two leaders from that day forward (Lk 23:12). 4.2.4. Antipas and Exile. In A.D. 36 Aretas IV attacked and defeated Antipas’s army. The Jews considered this divine punishment for Antipas’s execution of John the Baptist (Josephus Ant. 18.5.1–2 §§116–19). Tiberius commanded Vitellius, governor of Syria, to help Antipas against Aretas. However, before this could be accomplished Tiberius had died and Vitellius withheld his aid until he received orders from the new emperor Caligula. When Caligula became emperor (A.D. 37) he gave his friend Agrippa I, brother of Herodias and nephew of Antipas, the land of Philip the tetrarch as well as the tetrarch of Lysanius with the title king (Josephus Ant. 18.6.10 §§225–39). Later, Agrippa went to Pales tine (c. August of 38) to see his newly acquired domain. His presence in the land provoked Herodi as’s jealousy because he had obtained the much-coveted title king which Antipas had never received, although he had ruled well and faithfully since 4 B.C. Finally, under Herodias’s persuasion, Antipas and Herodias went to Rome in A.D. 39 to seek the same honor. Agrippa heard of this and sent an envoy to Rome to bring accusations against Antipas. This action resulted in the banishment of Antipas and Herodias to Lugdunum Convenarum, now Saint-Bertrand de Comminges in southern France in the foothills of the Pyrenees. Caligula learned that Herodias was the sister of Agrippa I and excused her from the exile, but she chose to follow her husband. As a result, Agrippa I obtained Antipas’s territories of Galilee and Perea (Josephus Ant. 18.7.1–2 §§240–55; J.W. 2.9.6 §§181–83).

5. The Herodians. The Herodians were influential persons who were partisans of the Herodian dynasty. They are mentioned three times in the NT, dealing with two incidents where they joined with the Pharisees in their opposition to Jesus. The first incident took place in Galilee immediately after Jesus healed the man with the withered hand, and the Herodians and the Pharisees sought to destroy Jesus (Mk 3:6). The second episode was in Jerusalem when the Pharisees and the Herodians tried to incriminate Jesus regarding the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Mt 22:16 par. Mk 12:13). The Herodians are not mentioned in Luke or John. The origin of the name has been debated. Some think that the ending of their name reflects the Latin suffix -ianus which is appended to adjectives, thus making it a substantive meaning that they were of the household of Herod, that is, domestic servants. Others think that it is a Greek suffix meaning that they were officers or agents of Herod. However, in the Gospel narratives they are not portrayed as either domestic servants or officers of Herod but as influential people whose outlook was friendly to the Herodian rule and consequently to the Roman rule upon which it rested. The issue comes to the forefront in Mark 8:15 and Matthew 16:6 where in Mark we read of the “leaven of Herod” and the Matthean parallel refers to the “leaven of the Sadducees.” This problem becomes more critical if the secondary Markan reading, “leaven of the Herodians” (P45, θ ϝ1, 13), is the correct one. The problem with this passage is not the inter pretation but the question of whether the Sadducees and the Herod(ians) are the same? At first this seems impossible because Herod the Great tried to discredit the Hasmonean house. Furthermore, he and his grandson Agrippa I never selected a high priest from among the Sadducees, who were pro-Hasmonean, but rather from the house of Boethus. However, a reversal of this policy occurred between Herod’s son Archelaus’s deposition in A.D. 6 and Agrippa I’s acquisition of

Leg. Gai. Legatio ad Gaium par. parallel passage in another/other Gospel(s) Judea in A.D. 41. At that time most of the high priests came from the Sadducean house of Annas because the province of Judea was not under Herodi an rule but under direct Roman rule of the prefects. It seems probable, then, that the Boethusians, being pro-Herodian, were really the Herodians and the Sadducees were pro-Hasmonean. Actually, later rabbinic sources used the Boethusian name inter changeably with that of the Sadducees (m. Menaḥ 10.3). It may well be that the Sadducees and the Herodians would have been close if not identical religiously and economically. Thus, the Herodians were politically affiliated with the Herodian house, but they were religiously and economically affiliated with the Sadducees. However, the political distinctions between the Sadducees and Herodians were blurred with the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (a Hasmonean on her mother’s side). It could be that Herod Antipas married Herodias to gain Sadducean support. Hence, the Herodians and the Sadducees would have been on the same side politically against the Pharisees, the Herodians being pro-Herodian government while the Pharisees were both anti-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian. This is borne out in Mark 8:15 and Matthew 16:6, 12 where the Pharisees and the Sadducees/Herodians are contrary parties opposing Jesus. In summary, the Herodians were theologically in agreement with the Sadducees and politically both of these parties would have been the opposite of the Pharisees who were anti-Hasmonean, anti-Herodian and anti-Roman. The Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the rule of the Herods and Rome, whereas the Herodians wanted to preserve the Herodian rule. However, the Herodians and the Pharisees worked together to oppose Jesus, because he was introducing a new kingdom (see Kingdom of God) that neither wanted.5

5 Competing Visions of Israel’s story – Scott McNight Kingdom Conspiracy pp

1 – Psalms of Solomon, God’s Messiah goes to War

Psalms of Solomon – a Judean response to Rome capturing Jerusalem in 63BCE Pompey is the Caesar at the time Rome was a response on Yahweh’s part to Israel’s arrogant self-leadership Pompey set up unlawful sacrifices – the Jews went along with it God is going to raise up a military Messiah who will retake the Holy City, the land, the temple, etc. See the extended quotations from the Psalms of Solomon - from Kingdom Conspiracy The Lord will raise up a leader for them To purge Jerusalem from Gentile presence To destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth The battle is the Lord’s go be waged by Yahweh, but through the Messiah He will be free from sin in order to rule a great people….

2 – Maccabees and Zealots – Holy Warfare

1&2 Maccabees – deuterocanonical writings from intertestamental period Mattathias of Modein and his sons Judah the Hammer, Simon and Jonathan Maccabeus. Battles that happened in 167-164 BCE Maccabean revolt against Syrian overlords (pressuring them to give up circumcision, etc) Fought to regain control of the Temple – celebration of Hanukkah commemorates this Use of bloodshed and violence to recapture control of the Temple Simon the Zealot was one such Holy Warrior! And was one of Jesus’ 12 Disciples Jesus – take up your cross ….not your sword!

3.10. Simon the Zealot. In addition to Simon Peter there was a disciple known as Simon the Cananaean (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word for “zeal” or “zealot” [qan˒ānā˒]) or Simon the m. Mishna 5Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 323 Zealot (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). The expression indicates that this Simon was a zealous nationalist prior to his call to follow Jesus, and may indicate some of his ongoing temperament. Later, the term zealot was used to designate the religiously motivated Jewish revolutionaries who were active in guerilla-type warfare in the period leading up to A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem (see Revolutionary Movements).6

Zealots. A Jewish revolutionary movement. The name comes from the Greek zēlōtēs, a person full of zeal, displaying fervent devotion to a cause. The Zealots were a Jewish political party whose devotion to theocracy and Torah led to violent military clashes against the Roman occupation of Palestine. Their 7 provocations against the Romans precipitated the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

ZEALOT (Gk. zēlōtēs). One of the twelve apostles is called Simon the Zealot (Lk. 6:15; Acts 1:13), either because of his zealous temperament or because of some association with the party of the Zealots (*CANANAEAN). Paul speaks of himself as having been a religious zealot (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14), and the many members of the church of Jerusalem are described as all ‘zealots for the law’ (Acts 21:20). The party of the Zealots, described by Josephus as the ‘fourth philosophy’ among the Jews (BJ 2.117; Ant. 18.23), was founded by *JUDAS the Galilean, who led a revolt against Rome in AD 6 (*CENSUS). They opposed the payment of tribute by Israel to a pagan emperor on the ground that this was treason to God, Israel’s true King. These men were called Zealots because they followed the example of Mattathias and his sons and followers, who manifested zeal for the law of God when Antiochus IV tried to suppress the Jewish religion (1 Macc. 2:24-27), and the example of Phinehas, who showed comparable zeal in a time of apostasy in the wilderness (Nu. 25:11; Ps. 106:30f.). Then the revolt of AD 6 was crushed they kept its spirit alive for 60 years. Members of Judas’s family were Zealot leaders; two of his sons were crucified by the procurator Alexander c. AD 46 (Jos., Ant. 20. 102), and a third, Menahem, attempted to seize the leadership of the anti- Roman revolt in AD 66 (Jos., BJ 2.433). Zealots were active throughout the war of AD 66-73; the last Zealot stronghold, Masada, fell in May AD 74, but even then the Zealot spirit was not completely quenched. 8 (*ASSASSINS.)

REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS Revolutionary movements were a response of some Jews to the injustice of Israel’s oppressors, particularly the Roman Empire (see Rome). The first century was one of the most violent epochs of Jewish history, with the cauldron of unrest reaching its apex in the destruction of Jerusalem (see Destruction of Jerusalem) by the Romans in A.D. 70. This in turn was punctuated by the mass suicide of Jewish rebel forces at Masada in 74. Sixty years later the smoldering embers from this war were fanned into flame by the Jewish leader Simon Bar Kokhba (or Kosiba), who led the second revolt against the Romans in 132–35. The causes of this unrest were many and varied, but the following factors contributed to a milieu ripe for revolution: foreign military occupation, class conflicts, misconduct of Jewish and Roman officials, Hellenization (see Hellenism), burdensome taxation (see Taxes)and the Samaritan situation. When the Roman army occupied a land, it was accompanied by thousands of civilians (wives, children, doctors, merchants, etc.). The army lived off the occupied country, pilfering its natural resources, enslaving members of its population, raping women and generally terrorizing the populace. The gentry of Palestine collaborated with the occupying forces and, in exchange for personal safety and affluence, aided Israel’s

6Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 181 7Patzia, Arthur G. ; Petrotta, Anthony J.: Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2002, S. 126 Gk. Greek BJ Josephus, Jewish Wars Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews AD anno Domini f. and the following (verse, etc.) c. circa (Lat.), about, approximately Jos. Josephus 8Wood, D. R. W. ; Marshall, I. Howard: New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1996, S. 1263 oppressors. This collusion led to class conflict between the rich and the poor (see Rich and Poor), the faithful and the unfaithful, the rulers and the people (see Horsley and Hanson). With conditions so difficult for the average Palestinian Jew, a good deal of revolutionary activity arose among them. This took a variety of forms. 1. Social Bandits 2. Messianic Pretenders 3. Revolutionary Prophets 4. Apocalypticists 5. The Fourth Philosophy and the Martyr Tradition 6. The Sicarii 7. The Zealots 8. Conclusion 1. Social Bandits. Generally speaking, social banditry arises in agrarian societies where peasants are exploited by the government or ruling class. Social bandits are the “Robin Hoods” of the land and usually increase during times of economic crisis, famine, high taxation and social disruption. The people of the land usually side with the bandits since they are champions of justice for the common people. These brigands usually symbolize the country’s fundamental sense of justice and its basic religious loyalties. In 57 B.C. Gabinius, proconsul in Syria, gave increased power to the nobility, thereby putting extreme pressure on the peasantry. In response the peasantry rebelled and not until a decade later was Palestine able to govern itself effectively again. It is therefore not surprising to find social banditry on the rise during and after this period of civil war and economic hardship. In fact, Josephus reports that a certain Hezekiah led a band of social bandits who raided the Syrian border (J.W. 1.10.5–7 §§204–11; Ant. 14.9.2–4 §§159– 74). Herod (see Herodian Dynasty), when he was governing Galilee, caught and killed Hezekiah and many of his cohorts. These deaths, however, did not mark the end of social banditry. Years later Herod was still trying to exterminate the brigands (J.W. 1.16.2 §304). In 39–38 B.C. Herod assembled an army to track down these social bandits in order to consolidate his power as Rome’s client king. Josephus notes that there was a “large force of brigands” (J.W. 1.16.1–2 §§303–4). Undoubtedly these social bandits were attacking the gentry who were in league with Herod. The brigands retreated to the caves near Arbela, but were strong enough to continue to harass the gentry and challenge Herod’s complete control of the land. Herod, not to be defied, formulated a strategy which Josephus narrates: With ropes he lowered [over the cliffs] the toughest of his men in large baskets until they reached the mouths of the caves; they then slaughtered the brigands and their families, and threw firebrands at those who resisted. … Not a one of them voluntarily surrendered and of those brought out forcibly many preferred death to captivity (J.W. 1.16.4 §311). An old man who had been caught inside one of the caves with his wife and seven children … stood at the entrance and cut down each of his sons as they came to the mouth of the cave, and then his wife. After throwing their dead bodies down the steep slope, he threw himself down too, thus submitting to death rather than slavery (Ant. 14.15.5 §§429–30). Since subsequent sources from Herod’s reign contain no references to social bandits, this attack may have extinguished them, but it is an argument from silence. Indeed, until the end of the reign of Agrippa I (A.D. 44), there is very little evidence for active resistance through social banditry. In Mark 15:27, however, two “bandits” are mentioned. Josephus also mentions a certain Tholomaus as a bandit leader (Ant. 20.1.1 §5). Tholomaus was likely not the only one because we read that Fadus (A.D. 44–46) set out to purge the “whole of Judea” of brigands (Ant. 20.1.1 §5). It seems that around the middle of the first century, probably as a result of a severe famine, social banditry sharply increased. Eleazar was one of these brigands and he enjoyed a twenty-year career (J.W. 2.13.2 §253). Actions taken by the authorities seem to have only proliferated Palestinian banditry. Cumanus (A.D. 48–52) took aggressive military action against the brigands, but they merely retreated into their strongholds and “from then on the whole of Judea was infested with brigands” (Ant. 20.6.1 §124). Just before the Jewish revolt the rich and the poor were sharply polarized, taxation was very high, Roman oppression was grievous, justice was perverted and poverty was widespread. Consequently, Jewish banditry swelled to epidemic proportions so that a sizable number of the population were outlaws. This

J.W. Jewish Wars Ant. Antiquities of the Jews situation obviously took its toll on the gentry and contributed to the spiraling social unrest. Without doubt, social banditry is a major factor to be considered in any study of the First Jewish Revolt. As the revolt broke out the bandits played an important role in resisting the Roman army’s forays into Judea and Galilee, with brigand groups dominating the region of Galilee. The effectiveness of the brigands against Rome was due not only to their impressive military strength, but also to their favorable relationship with the peasants and their ability to build alliances with other rebel forces. The most important contribution made by these social bandits was their highly effective use of guerrilla warfare, which they demonstrated in routing the army of Cestius Gallus in A.D. 66. Ultimately, however, the brigands failed in their attempt to free Palestine from Roman rule. 2. Messianic Pretenders. In Judaism prior to the first century there was no single, messianic expectation held by Jews (see Christ). Furthermore, Messiah, as a title, does not appear frequently in pre-Christian literature. Only after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when rabbinic theological reflection (see Rabbinic Traditions and Writings) standardized and popularized the term, does Messiah appear frequently, with essentially the same meaning in each usage. The scarcity of the term, however, does not suggest that there were no expectations of an anointed royal Jewish leader. The OT had begun to shape an expectation with its promises of a “branch” God would raise for David (see Son of David). This notion can be seen in Jeremiah 23:5–6 and Isaiah 11:2–9 where the “shoot from the stump of Jesse” shall “judge the poor with righteousness.” Micah also contributed to the expectation by identifying Bethlehem as the home town of Messiah (Mic 5:2). But it is inappropriate to speak of a widespread OT expectation of Messiah. During the period of Persian and Hellenistic domination, there is also little evidence of a Messianic hope. The promises to David and the prophecies of a future Davidic king were known during these periods (cf. Sir 47:11, 22; 1 Macc 2:57), but the fulfillment was postponed to the distant future. This is also probably the case during the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, although a few references may be interpreted otherwise (cf. 1 Enoch 90:9, 37–38; 1 Macc. 3:4). During the Hasmonean period, however, the hope of an anointed royal figure who would deliver Israel became more prominent. At Qumran (see Dead Sea Scrolls) there were apparently two anointed figures: a high priestly Messiah and the Prince of the Congregation, a lay head of the eschatological community. And in other Jewish literature of the period an anointed royal figure begins to emerge (Pss. Sol. 17). But among extant writings, only those coming from the period following the death of Herod (4 B.C.) refer unambiguously to a promised anointed figure. After the death of Herod in 4 B.C. the Jews pressed Herod’s son and heir apparent, Archelaus, for a number of reforms. During the Passover, when the demands reached a feverish pitch, Archelaus sent his armies into Jerusalem and massacred thousands of worshipping pilgrims. This action catalyzed revolt in every major area of Herod’s kingdom, and some of these revolts took the form of messianic movements. Josephus identifies several leaders of these movements: Judas, the son of Ezekias (Ant. 17.10.5 §§271–72; J.W. 2.4.1 §56); Simon, servant of King Herod (Ant. 17.10.6 §§273–76); and Athronges (Ant. 17.10.7 §§278– 85). Josephus clearly indicates that they aspired to be Israel’s king (J.W. 2.4.1 §55; Ant. 17.10.8 §285). All of these messianic figures were of humble origins, and their followers were primarily peasants (see Barnett). The principal goal of these revolutionaries was to overthrow Herodian and Roman domination of Palestine. In addition to fighting the Romans, these revolutionaries attacked the mansions of the aristocracy and the royal residences. This undoubtedly reveals the frustration of years of social inequality. In response, Varus, legate of Syria, dispatched two legions (6,000 troops each) and four regiments of cavalry (500 each). This was in addition to the troops already in Judea and the auxiliary troops provided by the city states and client kings in the area. In spite of this military might these messianic movements were difficult to subdue. Because of the lack of sources it is difficult to identify any messianic movements between the above- mentioned revolts and those surrounding the First Jewish Revolt (except, of course, the followers of Jesus). With regard to the First Jewish Revolt, Josephus notes two messianic movements that bear mentioning. The first was led by Menahem, son of Judas, the Galilean, who took his followers and marched off to Masada. There he broke open king Herod’s arsenal and armed other brigands, in addition to his own group. With these men as his bodyguards, he returned to Jerusalem as a king, and becoming a leader of the insurrection, he organized the siege of the palace (J.W. 2.17.8 §§433–34; cf. 2.17.5 §§422–42). The second messianic movement mentioned by Josephus was built around Simon bar Giora (i.e., “Simon son of a proselyte”). In A.D. 66, at the outbreak of the war, Simon helped aid the Jews against Cestius by attacking the Roman rear guard. Simon’s messianic movement was also motivated by the social oppression

1 Enoch Ethiopic Enoch Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon exerted by Israel’s aristocracy. When Simon had gained control of the Judean and Idumean country side, the citizens of Jerusalem invited him to lead the defense against Rome. After a power struggle in which he forced the Zealots and John of Gischala aside, Simon took control of Jerusalem. Simon was a strict disciplinarian and did well in his struggle against the Romans, but the Roman army was overwhelmingly powerful. Adorned in a white tunic and a purple cape as the king of the Jews, Simon surrendered and was taken to Rome. There he was ritually executed. The messianic movement led by Simon was the largest of all the movements described by Josephus, lasting nearly two years. It may have been fueled by eschatological hopes. The final messianic movement in recorded Jewish antiquity (A.D. 132–35) was led by Simeon bar Kokhba. Rabbi Akiba proclaimed that Simeon was indeed the Messiah, and a large portion of the Judean peasantry responded to the claim. Simeon had three years of independence and even minted coins (inscribed “Year 1 of the liberation of Israel”). When Rome sent in a massive army, Simeon resorted to guerrilla warfare and forced the Romans into a prolonged war of attrition. Nevertheless, the Romans finally did “annihilate, exterminate and eradicate” them from the land (Dio Cassius 59.13.3).

Jewish Revolutionary Movements and Conflict with Rome c. 4 B.C. Archleaus massacres Passover pilgrims in Jerusalem. c. 36 A.D. The Samaritan leads followers to Mt. Gerizim. 40 Caligula attempts to set up his statue in the Temple. 44 Herod Agrippa, the last Jewish king, dies. 45 Theudas persuades followers to accompany him to Jordan. 50s The Egyptian leads followers to Mt. of Olives to experience fall of Jerusalem’s walls. c. 60–62 Unnamed prophet leads people into wilderness to receive salvation. 66 Florus, procurator, antagonizes Jews by taking from Temple treasury. 66–68 Simon bar Glora is popularly acclaimed king and later will play a leadership role 66 August Jewish insurgents capture Antonia; Cestius, Syrian legate, attacks Jerusalem 67 Spring-Fall Roman army under Vespasian subdues Galilee 67–68 Winter Zealot party formed under Eleazar controls Jerusalem. 69 Spring Turmoil divides Jerusalem with three parties vying for power. 70 Spring-Fall Titus conquers and destroys Temple and Jerusalem. 74 Jewish rebels at Masada commit mass suicide. 132–135 Bar Kokhba leads second revolt against Rome.

3. Revolutionary Prophets. Despite the amount of prophetic activity prior to the first century, there is virtually no evidence for a Jewish expectation of the imminent return of the promised eschatological prophet (see Prophet, Prophecy). Nor were there vivid expectations for the appearance of the prophet-like-Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18. There may have been some expectations for the return of Elijah (see Elijah and Elisha), but a claimant to this identity never materialized. Thus the appearance of any popular prophet of reputed eschatological significance was more than just the fulfillment of a popular expectation. R. A. Horsley has helpfully distinguished between “popular prophetic movements” and “oracular prophets.” The latter group was similar in character to classical oracular prophets such as Hosea or Jeremiah; they prophesied either judgment or deliverance. Oracular prophets proclaiming deliverance appeared just prior to and during the First Jewish Revolt. Typically, those oracular prophets who pronounced judgment were not well received, being perceived by the establishment as a threat and consequently silenced. 3.1. Popular Prophets. Popular prophetic movements, on the other hand, had leaders who led sizable movements of peasants. The political authorities generally viewed this activity as insurrectionist and therefore forced a military confrontation. These prophets and their followers generally arose in anticipation of the appearance of God’s eschatological liberation. This liberation was perceived as imminent, and when it arrived the Jews would be freed from their political bondage and would again govern Palestine, the land God had given to them as their own possession. The leaders of these popular prophetic movements are described by Josephus in general terms: Impostors and demagogues, under the guise of divine inspiration, provoked revolutionary actions and impelled the masses to act like madmen. They led them out into the wilderness so that there God would show them signs of imminent liberation. (J.W. 2.13.4 §259; cf. Ant. 20.8.6 §168) These popular prophets, preying upon social conditions, apparently taught that God was about to transform their society—characterized by oppression and social injustice—into a society marked by peace, prosperity and righteousness (see Justice, Righteousness). Responding to the call, large numbers of peasants left their homes, their work and their communities to follow these charismatic leaders into the desert. There in the wilderness (see Mountain and Wilderness) they awaited God to manifest his presence through signs and wonders (see Miracles and Miracle Stories), purify his people (see Clean and Unclean) and unveil the eschatological plan of redemption which he had previously revealed to his prophet. At this juncture God himself would act and defeat Israel’s enemies. 3.1.1. The Samaritan. The first of these prophets appeared when Pontius Pilate was procurator. Interestingly, this first movement appeared among the Samaritans. The Samaritans, like the Jews, revered Moses as the prophet and cultivated hopes for a future Mosaic prophet who was discussed in terms of “the restorer” (taheḇ). The Taheḇ would appear and restore Solomon’s Temple on Mount Gerizim. Josephus has described one such Samaritan prophetic movement: Nor was the Samaritan nation free from disturbance. For a man who had no qualms about deceit, and freely used it to sway the crowd, commanded them to go up with him as a group to Mount Gerizim, which is for them the most sacred mountain. He promised to show them, when they got there, the holy vessels buried at the spot where Moses had put them. Those who thought his speech convincing came with arms and stationed themselves at a village called Tirathana. There they welcomed late-comers so that they might make the climb up the mountain in a great throng. But Pilate was quick to prevent their ascent with a contingent of cavalry and armed infantry. They attacked those who had assembled beforehand in the village, killed some, routed others, and took many into captivity. From this group Pilate executed the ringleaders as well as the most able among the fugitives. (Ant. 18.4.1 §§85–87) 3.1.2. Theudas. Perhaps ten years later, about A.D. 45, a second major prophetic movement began. A certain Theudas (probably not the Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36) organized one of these prophetic movements during the reign of Fadus (A.D. 44–46). Josephus also describes this prophet’s ministry: When Fadus was governor of Judea, a charlatan named Theudas persuaded most of the common people to take their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River. He said he was a prophet, and that at his command the river would be divided and allow them an easy crossing. Through such words he deceived many. But Fadus hardly let them consummate such foolishness. He sent out a cavalry unit against them, which killed many in a surprise attack, though they also took many alive. Having captured Theudas himself, they cut off his head and carried it off to Jerusalem. (Ant. 20.5.1 §§97–98) Obviously Theudas’ movement attracted large numbers of Jews, so much so that Josephus hyperbolically states that Theudas deceived “most of the common people.” Perhaps Theudas, in some sort of reverse Exodus, saw himself as the new Moses leading the people out of bondage (like Egypt) and across the Jordan (like the Red Sea) into the wilderness to be divinely prepared for the new conquest. Fadus, not taking any chances, acted decisively, thus showing his fear of such movements. The movement’s swift annihilation almost certainly indicates that, unlike the messianic movements, this prophetic band was un armed. Theudas’ posthumous public humiliation by the ceremonial parading of his severed head was intended to send a stern warning to any would-be leaders of similar prophetic movements. 3.1.3. The Egyptian. Another movement, about ten years later, involved a Jewish prophet who originated from Egypt (Ant. 20.8.6 §§169–71; J.W. 2.13.5 §§261–63; cf. Acts 21:38). Josephus records that this prophet had a following of 30,000 who were to march from the wilderness to the Mount of Olives and then into Jerusalem. Felix sent Roman troops to slaughter all those involved in the movement. The Roman army easily defeated this prophetic band, even though the Egyptian himself escaped. It seems fairly clear that these prophetic movements saw themselves in some sort of continuity with Israel’s past great historical deliverances. They also had an eschatological dimension in their claim that God was about to deliver Israel and grant their autonomy in the promised land. 3.2. Oracular Prophets. The second category of prophets, the oracular prophets, pronounced imminent divine deliverance; these prophets were concentrated around the First Jewish Revolt. Josephus (J.W. 6.5.3 §§300–309) recalls with considerable detail a prophet named Jesus, son of Hananiah. This Jesus appeared four years before the First Revolt, during a time when Jerusalem “was enjoying great peace and prosperity,” and prophesied against Jerusalem for seven years and five months. In the end he was struck by a stone from one of the “missile engines” and killed. As the war began and the number of prophets increased, the Jews were urged to await help from God (J.W. 6.5.2 §§286–87). Even at the end of the war, when the Temple had already been sacked and set on fire, a prophet pronounced to 6,000 refugees that they would receive “tokens of their deliverance” and “help from God.” Every one of those 6,000 (J.W. 6.5.2 §§283–84). 4. Apocalypticists. The apocalypticists do not seem to have been a party per se, but many of the Jews in the period 200 B.C.- A.D. 100, including some of the oracular prophets, apparently became persuaded of apocalyptic eschatology. For the apocalypticists Israel’s situation looked funereal. It was a depressing period of unfulfilled hopes, shattered eschatological dreams, conflict with the ruling class, no authorized prophetic spokesperson and, above all, periods of persecution for the righteous who remained faithful to the Torah. At the same time the Hellenized and severely com promised Jewish aristocracy was prospering. This situation, perceived as a crisis by some within Israel, forced a search for creative solutions. This gave rise to an apocalyptic eschatology which represented a new interpretation of human history and destiny with new emphases and insights. While maintaining continuity with the prophetic eschatology of the past, it developed in a direction that was at once dualistic, cosmic, universalistic, transcendental and individualistic. Apocalyptic eschatology led to an emphasis on other-worldliness and a disinterest in temporal affairs. With its stress on cosmic dualism, the apocalypticists understood the real battle to be in the heavenlies between the powers. They were called upon therefore to participate with Michael and the heavenly host in the battle against evil (see Angels). The primary weapon of this warfare was prayer, but it also included personal holiness and faithfulness to the Torah, even if that meant severe trial. In this way the apocalypticists could defeat Israel’s oppressor and rightly be classified a “revolutionary movement.” 5. The Fourth Philosophy and the Martyr Tradition. Josephus mentions, in addition to the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, a “Fourth Philosophy.” Although many have linked this Fourth Philosophy with the Zealots and the sicarii, recently Horsley has persuasively argued that this identification is not correct. Horsley notes that, on the one hand, Judas the Galilean was a teacher with his own party (J.W. 2.3.3 §118), but on the other, Judas, as part of the Fourth Philosophy “agreed with the views of the Pharisees in everything except their unconquerable passion for freedom since they take God as their only leader and master” (Ant. 18.1.6 §23). At least prima facie this Fourth Philosophy was a branch of Pharisaism in which certain teachers (e.g., Judas, Saddok, etc.) advocated a strongly proactive stance against Roman rule. Horsley suggests that the advocacy of resistance against Rome was rooted in four interrelated concepts. The first concept was related to taxes: to pay tax was equivalent to slavery. Moreover, it was argued that Scripture prohibited it (2 Sam 24). Taxes therefore should not be paid to Rome. Second, Israel was a theocracy and to be ruled solely by God. To submit to foreign rule was no less than idolatry and a violation of the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Third, God would work synergistically through his faithful people if they would stand firm and actively resist their oppressors. Fourth, if Israel would demonstrate their resistance, God would work through them to establish his kingdom on earth. If the worst case occurred, and they ended in ruin, they would “at least have honor and glory for their high ideals” (Ant. 18.1.1 §§5–7). This resistance, Horsley notes, is never stated by Josephus as armed rebellion. In fact they seem instead to be willing sufferers: “They shrug off submitting to unusual forms of death and stand firm in the face of torture of relatives and friends, all for refusing to call any person master” (Ant. 18.1.6 §23). Instead of armed resistance, proponents of the Fourth Philosophy felt that if they remained firm and resisted Rome through obedience to the Torah, “God would eagerly join in promoting the success of their plans, especially if they did not shrink from the slaughter that might come upon them” (Ant. 18.1.1 §5). If this understanding of the Fourth Philosophy is correct, this group traced its lineage to the martyrs under Antiochus Epiphanes IV. The martyrological tradition, though it had antecedents, largely developed in the second century B.C. when Israel was experiencing severe persecution. The aristocracy had compromised its faith and was cooperating with the oppressing nation while those faithful to Torah were experiencing severe persecution. The suffering of the righteous, however, was interpreted as “warfare.” Part of the world view of these pious Jews was the belief that their innocent suffering would be so heinous that it would almost in a reflex action force God to act. This notion is most obvious in the Testament of Moses: If we … die, our blood will be avenged before the Lord and then his kingdom shall appear through out all his creation. … he shall … avenge them of their enemies. … he will go forth from his holy habitation with indignation and wrath on account of his sons. (T. Mos. 9:7–10:3) Underlying Taxo’s speech to his sons is the belief that God is the kinsman redeemer (gô˒ēl) of the righteous. This doctrine of divine vengeance taught that God protects and avenges the innocent and the vulnerable when they are victimized by social injustice (Ps 9:21; Is 5:4–5; 16:1–6; Jer 11:20; 15:15) or the spilling of blood (Gen 4:9; Deut 32:43; 2 Kings 9:7–10; Ps 9:11–12; Ezek 24:7–11; Joel 3:19–20). God is portrayed as not responding to the crime itself but to the prayers of the oppressed and the cry emanating from the slain

T. Mos. Testament of Moses (or Assumption of Moses) victim’s blood. “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to me, I will surely hear his cry … and I will kill you with the sword” (Ex 22:22–23). It is clear, therefore, that the martyrdom of the innocent Taxo and his sons was portrayed by the author of the Testament of Moses to provoke God to action because of the cry of innocent blood. God’s response would be no less than the complete annihilation of Israel’s enemies and the appearance of the eschatological kingdom (see Kingdom of God). This perspective also appears in literature from this period, especially 4 Maccabees. Fourth Maccabees was written sometime just before the First Jewish Revolt as an encomium to the martyrs under Antiochus IV. The purpose of the book was not only to apotheosize the martyrs, but also to encourage those who were facing similar trials to stand firm and fight against the opposition with the weapons of obedience and suffering. In 4 Maccabees 9 the eldest brother, after enduring a series of appalling acts of cruelty, encourages his compatriots: “Fight the sacred and noble battle for religion. Thereby the just Providence of our ancestors may become merciful to our nation and take vengeance on the accursed tyrant” (4 Macc 9:24 NRSV). In this verse the brother is exhorting the others not to compromise or to fight with illicit means. Rather, they are to hold fast and endure righteous suffering. In so doing they will defeat the king, because God will take vengeance upon the despot. This is equally as clear in the fourth brother’s response to his torture and torments: Even if you remove my organ of speech, God hears also those who are mute. See, here is my tongue; cut it off, for in spite of this you will not make our reason speechless. Gladly, for the sake of God, we let our bodily members be mutilated. God will visit you swiftly, for you are cutting out a tongue that has been melodious with divine hymns. (4 Macc 10:18–21 NRSV; cf. 9:9) Again, it is the innocent suffering which elicits God’s response, and therefore his judgment is precipitated upon Israel’s persecutors. Atrocities against the innocent accumulate, and the cries for vengeance rise to heaven. Thus, as each martyr dies, he knows that the testimony against the tyrant is strengthened, and judgment upon the king has been brought nearer. We also see this clearly in 4 Maccabees 11:3, the fifth brother’s speech, “I have come of my own accord, so that by murdering me you will incur punishment from the heavenly justice for even more crimes” (NRSV). This martyr believed that by his righteous suffering the perpetrator of the grave evil, Antiochus, would increase his guilt which would soon reach the level whereupon the divine Judge would necessarily act on behalf of justice. We can see this same theological construct operating in the sixth brother’s poignant speech: “I also, equipped with nobility, will die with my brothers, and I myself will bring a great avenger upon you, you inventor of tortures and enemy of those who are truly devout” (4 Macc 11:22–23 NRSV; cf. 9:32). The strength of this avenger is found in his armor, namely, his virtue. The innocent death of the martyrs promptly precipitates the avenging wrath of God; the righteous victims need not wait indefinitely— judgment is at hand. This fact obviously had motivated the fourth brother as he endured the agony: “Gladly, for the sake of God, we let our bodily members be mutilated. God will visit you swiftly” (4 Macc 10:20–21 NRSV; cf. 12:20). Vengeance has even been personified as one in pursuit of the archvillain. The author intimates that it does not take long for vengeance to stalk its prey and administer justice. “The tyrant Antiochus was both punished on earth and is being chastised after his death” (4 Macc 18:5 NRSV). And again in the same chapter we read, “For these crimes divine justice pursued and will pursue the accursed tyrant” (4 Macc 18:22 NRSV). The author clearly perceives the martyrs’ struggle as nothing less than war. It is a conflict of good against evil, God against Satan. This is again made clear from his comment after recounting the martyrs’ eulogy: Indeed it would be proper to inscribe on their tomb these words as a reminder to the people of our nation: “Here lie buried an aged priest and an aged woman and seven sons, because of the violence of the tyrant who wished to destroy the way of life of the Hebrews. They vindicated their nation, looking to God and enduring torture even to death. Truly the contest in which they were engaged was divine. (4 Macc 17:8–11 NRSV) The mother of the seven sons has earned the complete respect of the author as an assailant in the battle against Antiochus. He gives her the title warrior, and remarks in amazement at her spirited combat. The writer goes so far as to credit her with the victory in the national struggle against the despot: O mother, soldier of God in the cause of religion, elder and woman! By steadfastness you have conquered even a tyrant … you stood and watched Eleazar being tortured, and said to your sons in the Hebrew

NRSV New Revised Standard Version language, “My sons, noble is the contest to which you are called to bear witness for the nation. Fight zealously for our ancestral law. (4 Macc 16:14–16 NRSV) In the battle against Antiochus the martyrs’ role is to endure suffering and die; they are not to compromise or take up arms. The martyrs are merely to acquiesce to the tyrant’s torture and sword. In performing this function they provide the key element in the battle which will defeat the enemies’ forces and deliver the nation from their oppressors. This is a consistent theme throughout the book. Note these representative texts: [the martyrs are] the cause of the downfall of tyranny over their nation, they conquered the tyrant. (4 Macc 1:11 NRSV) O mother, who with your seven sons nullified the violence of the tyrant, frustrated his evil designs. (4 Macc 17:2 NRSV; cf. 9:30) In most of the passages commenting on the effect of the martyrs’ deaths, the martyrs themselves are the agents of victory. Thus, the contribution of the martyrs is the cardinal contribution in the war effort. It justifies the amount of time devoted in 4 Maccabees to the martyrs’ heroics. Without them victory would have been impossible. In the author’s opinion the martyrs single-handedly defeat Antiochus and his evil forces. They accomplish his downfall by clinging to their Law, not compromising and giving clear testimony to their faith. Righteousness is the lethal weapon in their struggle. They fight by persevering in their righteousness and patiently enduring torture and martyrdom; these are the martyrs’ only weapons. Their foe is Antiochus, to be sure, but only insofar as he is in league with evil. The martyrs’ real enemy is Satan, and their souls are at stake in the war. The heavenly host aids their effort, and by dying the martyrs are assured of victory. The picture is nearly identical to that contained in the martyrological literature written earlier. This evidence suggests that the martyrs, by their innocent suffering, participated in the war against Antiochus and were the principal agents of victory. Their suffering was the decisive factor in the war effort. If Horsley is indeed correct in his identification of the Fourth Philosophy, these martyrs with their theology of martyrdom are likely to have been its antecedents, and the Fourth Philosophy held many, if not all, of the above-mentioned theological constructs. Although this was principally a theology of suffering, the outcome was victory over Israel’s enemies and therefore no less a revolutionary movement than any other.

6. The Sicarii. The name sicarii was derived from the weapon that they employed, a curved dagger like the Roman sicae (Ant. 20.8.10 §186). Josephus describes them thus: A different type of bandit, known as sicarii, sprang up in Jerusalem. This group murdered people in broad daylight right in the middle of the city. Mixing with the crowds, especially during the festivals, they would conceal small daggers beneath their garments and stealthily stab their opponents. Then, when their victims fell, the murderers simply melted into the outraged crowds, undetected because of the naturalness of their presence. The first to have his throat cut was Jonathan the High Priest, and after him many were murdered daily (J.W. 2.13.3 §§254–56). Some have identified these sicarii with the Zealots, others with social bandits, but as Horsley points out, these sicarii are a “different type” of bandit. As noted earlier, ordinary banditry is a rural activity in which the bandits pillage the wealthy. Because of their notoriety they normally congregate in hideouts and are always on the move. The sicarii, however, were urban assassins (not rural robbers) who, because of their secrecy, could live apparently normal lives (without fleeing to a hideout). Obviously these violent tactics are not those of the Fourth Philosophy. Josephus, however, seems to suggest a connection in the leadership: “Menahem, leader of the sicarii at the outbreak of the revolt, was Judas of Galilee’s grandson or perhaps son” (J.W. 7.8.1 §§253–54). If this conclusion is correct, it means that there must be some degree of correspondence be tween the religio-political orientation of these two groups. The assassination strategy is, however, a new development. The tactics of assassinations first appeared during the reign of Felix in the fifties (cf. J.W. 2.13.3 §§254– 57; 2.13.6 §§264–65; Ant. 20.8.5 §§163–65; 20.8.10 §§187–88). Unlike the social bandits who preyed on Roman petty officials and supply trains, the sicarii apparently attacked the Jewish aristocracy. These attacks took one of three forms. First, there were the selective assassinations of the ruling elite. The assassination of the high priest Jonathan is an example. Second, the sicarii slaughtered selected pro-Roman members of the Jewish aristocracy who lived in the countryside. These attacks also included plundering and burning selected aristocratic estates (J.W. 2.13.6 §§264–66; Ant. 20.8.6 §172). Third, the sicarii practiced terrorist hostage-taking. These attacks of the sicarii helped precipitate a revolutionary situation. They led to distrust among the ruling elite, fear among the aristocracy and catalyzed the fragmentation of the social order. That which normally provided the upper class with security began to erode and vague feelings of anxiety and insecurity came in their place; anyone could be next. The fragmentation of the ruling class was inevitable; individual personal safety became society’s most important value. Thus, instead of cooperative efforts to protect their interests, the ecclesiastical aristocracy and ruling class began hiring personal armies to protect their interests (Ant. 20.9.2 §§206–7). By responding with force and violence the ruling class further contributed to the breakdown of the social fiber and helped set the stage for the First Jewish Revolt. The sicarii’s role in the revolt itself seems quite limited. Apparently, at first they were not in the midst of the fray, but before long they entered the action. They helped in the siege of the Upper City and its aristocratic inhabitants (J.W. 2.17.6 §425); they also helped raze the royal palaces and the residence of the high priest Ananias. Shortly thereafter conflict broke out between the sicarii and the rest of the revolutionary forces. Within weeks the main body of the sicarii either had been executed, had retreated to Masada or had fled into hiding. The sicarii who occupied Masada sat out the rest of the war and preyed upon the surrounding countryside for their food supplies. In A.D. 73 the Romans attacked Masada, one of the last holdouts, only to discover that all of its occupants had committed suicide (J.W. 7.8.6–9.1 §§320– 401). 7. The Zealots. Although Luke mentions a certain Simon “the zealot” (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13) this is probably a characterizing name (namely, Simon was zealous), rather than a technical term identifying his affiliation with a revolutionary party (see Disciples). The Zealot party per se was not formed until the winter of A.D. 67–68. The party’s origins can be traced back to the clash between the Roman procurator Florus (A.D. 64–66) and the Jerusalem citizenry. During his term Florus had pilfered the Temple treasure, allowed his army to loot the city and attempted to capture and control the Temple. With such abuses left without redress and the city in a rebellious mood, the lower priests began to agitate for war. The Temple captain, Eleazar, son of Ananias, provided leadership and, together with the lower priests and the revolutionary leaders of the populace, decided to terminate the sacrifices offered twice each day on behalf of Rome and the Roman emperor (J.W. 2.17.2 §§409–10). Previously, the offering of this sacrifice had been negotiated as a satisfactory substitute for emperor worship and therefore was a tangible sign of Jewish loyalty to Rome. Thus the refusal to offer sacrifices was tantamount to a declaration of war; it broke the peace treaty, and Israel was now regarded outside the Roman Empire (J.W. 2.17.3 §415). The Temple was subsequently cleansed and Israel began again to show its absolute fidelity to the Torah. God was about to shower the nation with blessing. The chief priests and leading Pharisees, however, resisted the changes, and civil war soon broke out. Eleazar was joined by the sicarii (J.W. 2.17.5 §423) and together they defeated their rivals. But a power struggle ensued, with the sicarii battling Eleazar and his faithful; the sicarii were defeated and took refuge in Masada. Eleazar was now in control in Jerusalem. In August of 66, however, Cestius, the governor of Syria, bolstered with Roman forces, attacked Jerusalem. Through an unexpected turn of events Cestius abandoned the siege of Jerusalem and, in the process of retreat, lost a good number of troops. Buoyed by their success, most of Jerusalem and Judea rallied around the revolutionary cause. Now basically unified, the nation named Ananus, the high priest, as its head. The traditional high priests resumed their positions, and Eleazar joined them as general to Idumea (J.W. 2.20.4 §566). The Romans then began their reconquest. During the summer and fall of A.D. 67 they had subdued Galilee and were marching through Judea. The brigands and revolutionary forces in these areas were retreating. As these fugitives, as well as those from Idumea and Perea, took refuge in the city, their own views seemed to resonate with those lower priests who had started the revolt with the cessation of the sacrifices on behalf of Rome. This new coalition is the group Josephus calls “zealots.” The Zealots agitated against the ecclesiastical aristocracy and soon decided to assert themselves. First, they attacked some Herodian nobles against whom they still had some “ancient quarrel” and who also were accused of treason (J.W. 4.3.4–5 §§140–146). These “ancient quarrels” almost certainly were focused on those members of the nobility who were wealthy landowners with a large number of peasants indebted to them. The Zealots, regardless of the Roman threat, were also fighting a class war against the Jewish aristocracy. Obviously, this activity against the Herodian nobility would give rise to anxiety throughout the rest of Israel’s upper class. If this discriminate violence were not enough, the Zealots elected by lot their own people to priestly offices—even installing an uneducated lay person in the office of high priest. Without doubt the Zealots were conspiring for political control. Given the inflammatory nature of this Zealot activity, it is no surprise that the Jewish aristocracy immediately turned on the Zealots and viciously attacked them (J.W. 4.3.6–8 §§147–57). Incited by Ananus and Jesus son of Gamala, both high priests, the people of Jerusalem forced the Zealots into the inner court (J.W. 4.3.12 §§197–204). Trapped in the Temple, the Zealots contacted sympathizers outside of Jerusalem to free them (J.W. 4.4.1 §§224–32). The Idumeans responded, freed the Zealots and slaughtered Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamala. While they were at it, a number of other nobles also were assassinated (J.W. 4.4.2–3 §§233–53). There was yet another purge of Jerusalem’s nobility, and this one also included many who were formerly in power, as well as the wealthy. Within the Zealot ranks, however, all was not well. Many of the Zealots were not responsive to the dictatorial ways of John of Gischala. Since John could not gain absolute authority among the Zealots, he broke away to form his own revolutionary faction (J.W. 4.7.1 §§389–96). John’s independence, however, was short-lived. The messianic movement by Simon bar Giora was a threat to the Zealot regime in Jerusalem, and a good part of John’s army deserted so that John and the Zealots again formed an alliance. This alliance, however, did not prevent Simon bar Giora from attempting to liberate the city from the Zealots and John of Gischala (J.W. 4.9.11 §§571–76). Simon was able to force the Zealots back into the Temple (J.W. 4.9.12 §§577–84). The faction-prone Zealots split over the leadership of John. Josephus records that for a time there was even a three-way battle raging. Simon bar Giora, in control of Jerusalem, pressed in upon John of Gischala who was fighting to control the Temple courtyard and was caught between Simon and the rest of the Zealot party who were in the inner court above the Temple (J.W. 5.1.1–3 §§1–12). Shortly thereafter, John was able to reconcile himself to the rest of the Zealot party, although he was only able to accomplish it by way of trickery. John of Gischala was now the Zealot leader again (J.W. 5.2.3–3.2 §§67–106). By this time the Romans were at Jerusalem’s gates; this threat galvanized the rival factions to form a united front. The Jews, however, were no match for the Romans. During the siege the Zealots were the smallest of the rival groups and therefore had the least significant role to play (2,400 Zealots, 6,000 others under John of Gischala, 15,000 under Simon bar Giora). Nevertheless, the Zealots, in spite of their less significant role did fight courageously to the end in cooperation with their Jewish rivals against the overwhelming military strength of the Romans (J.W. 5.6.1–9.3 §§248–374). The Zealots should be remembered primarily for their thwarting of the nobility’s plan to negotiate a settlement with the Romans. Moreover, the Zealots were not the Fourth Philosophy mentioned by Josephus; indeed, they were not a sect or philosophy at all. Furthermore, the Zealots were not in the vanguard among those who were agitating for rebellion, but once the revolt was underway and the only choice was to fight or to flee, they stayed and fought to the death.

8. Conclusion. The centuries leading up to the First and Second Jewish Revolts were very painful for the Jewish nation. The political subjugation by foreign nations was extremely difficult, as well as the erosion of religious, cultural and socioeconomic structures. Israel’s general response to the unrest was revolt, but not always via armed rebellion. The social bandits, Zealots, sicarii and messianic pretenders generally advocated armed rebellion and agitated for a military solution. These groups, however, often fought among themselves, significantly weakening their impact. The other response, generally advocated by the apocalypticists, prophets and martyrs, believed in waiting upon God who, they believed, was about to intervene and personally defeat the enemy. The Fourth Philosophy, generally identifiable as having a genealogical link with the Maccabean martyrs, advocated suffering and martyrdom in order to move God to deliver Israel. None of these responses, however, was adequate to deal with the Roman threat. After the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132–35) Israel lost its political identity for almost two millennia. See also APOCALYPTIC; DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM; JUDAISM; ROME; TAXES. BIBLIOGRAPHY. S. A. Applebaum, “The Zealots: The Case for Reevaluation,” JRS 61 (1971) 165; E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, eds., Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: University Press, 1984); P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets—A.D. 40–70—Their Intentions and Origin,” NTS 27 (1981) 679–97; S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: University Press, 1967); O. Cullmann, Jesus and the Revolutionaries (New York: Harper and Row, 1970); W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (New York: Columbia University, 1956); W. J. Heard, “The Maccabean Martyrs’ Contribution to Holy War,” EvQ 58 (1986) 291–318; D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983); M. Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); idem, The Zealots (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); R. A. Horsley and J. S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs (New York: Winston, 1985); P. Kingdon, “Who Were the Zealots and Their Leaders in A.D. 66?” NTS 17 (1970) 60–75; J.

JRS Journal of Roman Studies NTS New Testament Studies EvQ Evangelical Quarterly Neusner, Messiah in Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); D. M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6–74 C.E. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); D. S. Russell, The Message and Method of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); S. Safrai and M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.—A.D. 135), rev. and ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–79) vol. II; M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relations,” HTR 64 (1971) 1–19. W. J. Heard 9

3- Essene – Holy Withdrawal Third most popular option Temple was corrupt – priesthood corrupt Collection of devout Jewish followers who decided to withdraw into community Khirbet Qumran was their headquarters – where the Dead Sea Scrolls later found Their leader known as The Teacher of Righteousness Waited for God’s holy wrath (not blessing) to come down (reminds you of Jonah) God would bring his kingdom on earth in wrath in response to utter failure of Israel to live up to its mission Saw themselves as the mighty warriors who would do battle Part Torah observance, part military holy warfare Jesus didn’t like either of their strategies – withdrawal or military battle Jesus’ kingdom vision was not the kingdom vision of the Essenes

Essenes. One of the sects of Jews (along with the Pharisees and Sadducees, among others) that existed in Palestine during the NT period. For reasons that remain unclear, the Essenes are not mentioned specifically in the NT, but Josephus describes them in his works. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, scholars renewed their interest in the group, since one of the scrolls was the *Rule of the Community, which detailed the practices of the community at Qumran. The precise relationship between the Qumran (Dead Sea) community and the Essenes is still open to conjecture (Josephus mentions two groups of Essenes, one that married and one that did not). From the fragments of knowledge that we can piece together, it seems that the Essenes viewed themselves as the true Israel who adhered strictly to the covenant made with God. Some may have separated themselves entirely from any outsiders (even other Jews), though they may have participated in temple worship on a limited basis.10

Dead Sea Scrolls. n. Scrolls written mostly in Hebrew and Aramaic with a few fragments in Greek, including copies of Old Testament books and portions of the Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, discovered in caves near the northwest edge of the Dead Sea in the 1940s. Many scholars believe the Essenes, a monastic, apocalyptically minded Jewish sect that lived at the site named Khirbet Qumran from 11 the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. gathered and produced this literature.

4 – Pharisees: zeal for Torah observance This was the most likely group for Jesus to side with They really were the good-guys! Very pro bible! Home bible study movement… Everyone get into living out the bible and bring down God’s blessings Including bringing the Messiah!

W. J. Heard Heard, Warren J., Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Counseling Psychology and New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, USA. 9Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 688 10Patzia, Arthur G. ; Petrotta, Anthony J.: Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2002, S. 43 11DeMoss, Matthew S.: Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2001, S. 42 Torah Observance! That’s why we got in this jam in the first place. They were probably the players most like evangelicals today (fundamentalists!) Pharisees taught Love of the Torah….Jesus taught a Torah of Love. Politics of love versus politics of observance… Equated their interpretation of the Torah with the Torah itself! Jesus thought the story of Israel was coming to fulfillment in himself!

PHARISEES The Pharisees appear in our sources as a distinct party in Judaism of the late Second Temple period, with their own vision of what Israel’s standing as God’s covenant people entailed. Characteristic of the Pharisaic position was their adherence to a body of traditional material (Gk paradosis) handed down “from the fathers,” which defined correct behavior in a number of ways and which represented both an interpretation of and a supplement to Pentateuchal Law. In the Gospels Pharisees are generally (though not quite universally) depicted as opponents of Jesus, critical of his behavior, hostile in their questions, malicious in their deliberations. In turn, their piety is attacked as hypocritical, their spiritual leadership is declared bankrupt, and they are charged with leading the nation to its doom. Through all the polemic the significant role played by the Pharisees in Jewish life in first-century Palestine is apparent. 1. Sources 2. Name and History 3. The Tradition of the Pharisees 4. Pharisees in the Gospels 5. Conclusion 1. Sources. Historical reconstruction must begin with an awareness of the problems posed by the nature of our sources. The Gospels will be treated in a later section. Here we focus on Josephus and rabbinic literature (see Rabbinic Traditions and Writings). 1.1. Josephus. In his autobiographical Life Josephus claims that he acquired firsthand knowledge of various Jewish schools of thought, then chose to govern his life according to the norms of the Pharisees (Life 10–12 §2). This suggests that Josephus, as a Pharisee, can be counted on to provide an informed and sympathetic picture of the party. Unfortunately, matters are not so simple. First, to a surprising extent what Josephus actually writes about the Pharisees is negative, at times sharply so. Such passages are commonly thought to have been uncritically reproduced from sources harboring ill will for the Pharisees (see Schwartz). An alternative explanation questions Josephus’s claim to be a Pharisee, noting that his writings betray little evidence of support for peculiarly Pharisaic beliefs and practices. The problem remains unresolved (see Mason). Second, Josephus describes the various Jewish parties (which he calls haireseis, or philosophical schools) in terms familiar to his Gentile readers. The Pharisees he compares with the Stoics (Life 12 §2). He notes their belief in the immortality of the soul (Ant. 18.1.3 §14), in the resurrection of the righteous (J.W. 2.8.14 §163) and in a fate which determines some, but not all, human actions (so Ant. 13.5.9 §172; cf. 18.1.3 §13; J.W. 2.8.14 §162–163). Their simplicity of life and deference to elders are also noted (Ant. 18.1.3 §12). While Pharisaic belief in resurrection was certainly characteristic, Josephus’s depiction misleads by focusing on matters readily comprehensible to his readers while omitting issues of legal observance which in fact marked the dividing lines between parties. Third, some scholars (e.g., J. Neusner) have suggest ed that Josephus in his Antiquities (which, in this respect, is contrasted with his Jewish War) produced propaganda for the Pharisees, exaggerating their influence on the people in order to convince the Roman authorities that any government installed in Palestine needed Pharisaic support to survive. The suggestion, while a healthy reminder that Josephus’s intentions must be taken into account, seems ill-founded. The evidence for considerable Pharisaic influence is not restricted to the Antiquities. Moreover, references to Pharisaic influence in the Antiquities are, considering the bulk of the work, few and confined to its later sections. Negative assessments of the Pharisees are also found (especially 17.2.4 §41–45). Had Josephus been motivated by the propagandistic purpose ascribed to him, he was singularly optimistic in hoping that the proper Roman officials would read the twenty books of his history with unflagging attention, ignore negative depictions of the Pharisees, link

Life Life of Flavius Josephus Ant. Antiquities of the Jews J.W. Jewish Wars in their minds the few scattered references to Pharisaic influence in Books 13 and 18, and draw the correct conclusions—without authorial prodding. 1.2. Rabbinic Literature. The use of rabbinic mate rials for our purposes is also problematic. Josephus’s writings at least come from the first century; rabbinic literature from centuries later. Some of the references it contains to the perûšîm clearly intend a party (rival to the Sadducees) in the years before A.D. 70, though the historical value of even these traditions is not assured. Other references to perûšîm do not relate to the Pharisees. Most vexed is the broad question of the relation between the Pharisees and subsequent rabbinic Jusaism (see Judaism). A longstanding tradition interprets the post-70 period in Judaism as marking the triumph of Pharisaism over its rivals. The rabbis are seen as successors to the Pharisees, and rabbinic materials (often cited as the “Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition”) are used to reconstruct Pharisaic positions. There are, to be sure, good reasons for positing substantial continuity between the Pharisees and the rabbis of the later period. Men called Pharisees in the NT and Josephus are recognized as authorities in rabbinic literature (Gamaliel; Simeon, son of Gamaliel). Pharisaic adherence to an extra-biblical “tradition from the fathers” corresponds nicely with rabbinic insistence on the validity of the oral as well as the written Torah. Belief in the resurrection is championed by both Pharisees and rabbis against opponents who deny it. When rabbinic literature juxtaposes positions of the Pharisees with those of the Sadducees (or others), the rabbis align themselves with the former. Nonetheless, it is an oversimplification to speak of the “Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition,” nor can rabbinic literature be used uncritically as evidence for Pharisaic positions. In part, the question must be put to each tradition in the rabbinic texts whether it in fact preserves memories from the pre-70 period. If this is granted, we must still ask whether it is Pharisaic positions which are represented. Rabbinic Judaism was open to many influences not specifically Pharisaic, and it is perhaps significant that the rabbis did not choose to see themselves as Pharisees. According to Cohen the post-70 period marks not the triumph of Pharisaism but the end of sectarianism as it was known in the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (see Destruction of Jerusalem). 2. Name and History. The derivation, force and use of the name “Pharisee” are all disputed. Commonly the name is traced to the Hebrew perûšîm and taken to mean “separatist.” It is then debated whether the term’s connotations were good or bad, and whether it was first used by Pharisees of themselves or of Pharisees by opponents. Recently, Baumgarten, noting that an evident claim of the Pharisees was to be the party of akribeia, of scrupulous exactness in their observance of God’s laws, has suggested that behind the name “Pharisee” may lie the Hebrew pārôšîm, “specifiers” (i.e., of the correct understanding of the divine requirements). Typically, the circumstances surrounding the origin of the Pharisaic party are lost to the historian’s view. Many scholars see them as spiritual descendants of the Hasidim, a group of pious Jews who attached themselves to the Maccabean opposition to the Seleucid King, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see Kampen). In the narrative of Josephus, Pharisees first appear in connection with the reign of John Hyrcanus. They are presented as a group with a defined set of laws and views of punishment which are alternately espoused and abrogated by Hasmonean monarchs. Herod’s wrath is said to have been roused by the Pharisees, many of whom he is purported to have killed. The character of the Pharisaic movement after the time of Herod is, again, in dispute. Neusner, granting that the Pharisees were a political force until Herod’s time, claims that they then evolved into a non-political group concerned primarily with the preservation of ritual purity for the eating of ordinary meals: a political party became a table-fellowship sect. Not unrelated is the observation, noted above, that Neusner believes Josephus in his Antiquities has grossly exaggerated the power of the Pharisees in the pre- 70 period. In fact they did not, Neusner insists, control the religious or political institutions of pre- destruction Judaism. But the distinction between political party and table-fellowship (see Table Fellowship) sect is a false one. Pharisees committed them selves to the scrupulous observance of a particular understanding of Israel’s Law (cf. Phil 3:5). Since requirements of tithing and ritual purity (see Clean and Unclean) form a part of Israel’s sacred tradition, it is likely that Pharisees of all periods followed a distinctive view of these requirements and, in order to ensure their observance at mealtimes, were restrictive in the company they kept (a “separateness” reflected in the usual understanding of the name Pharisee). In all periods, then, Pharisaism would have functioned in part as a table-fellowship sect. But a party acknowledged to be the most accurate interpreters of Israel’s Law could hardly have con fined its attention—in any period—to tithing and ritual purity. A more comprehensive agenda is both inherently likely and attested by the sources. Were the Pharisees, then, a political party? Again, the designation misleads. Pharisees were drawn from all classes and professions of Jewish society; many would not have been involved in politics at all. On the other hand, since Pharisaism was based on a view of what Israel’s responsibilities under the covenant entailed, those Pharisees who occupied positions of influence and power naturally did what they could to promote the acceptance of Pharisaic norms. In this sense Pharisees were involved in politics from Hasmonean times until the destruction of Jerusalem, though undoubtedly the effectiveness of their involvement underwent shifts. In any case, given the diversity of first-century Jewish Palestine, Pharisees of necessity competed with rival groups for influence and power. Whereas they might at times succeed in influencing the proceedings of particular religious and political institutions, they controlled none. It is hard to believe, for example, that Sadducean priests would have taken directions from Pharisees in conducting Temple worship. Nor should Pharisaic dominance of the Sanhedrin or even the synagogues be assumed. That the Saddu cees could count on support from the priestly aristocracy underlines a further dilemma facing the Pharisees: with no certain power base, they needed to be aggressive both in attracting members and in promoting their views. The evidence suggests that they achieved consider able success. Josephus describes the Pharisees as the leading sect (J.W. 2.8.14 §162). Both the rabbinic and Gospel materials appear to support the view that Pharisaic influence with the masses exceeded that of their rivals. Pharisaic claims of scrupulous piety and the preservation of ancestral laws were accorded wider circulation and support than any slogans the Sadducees or Essenes could devise (Life 191 §38; J.W. 1.5.2 §110; 2.8.14 §162; Acts 26:5). Indeed, the latter groups may have suffered in public estimation by their association, in the case of the Sadducees, with the Roman occupiers of the land (see Rome), and, in that of (some) Essenes, with none but themselves. Popular support was undoubtedly the main base of what influence the Pharisees possessed. The Pharisees emerge then as an organized party of members committed to a particular understanding of Israel’s Law, maintaining its practice themselves and advocating its adoption by others. Where rulers could be influenced, Pharisees lobbied for their views. Moreover, Pharisees were sufficiently schooled in the ways of the world to participate in councils and coalitions with rivals when the situation required it and common goals could be established (e.g., J.W. 2.17.3 §411; Life 20–23 §5). In this respect they functioned as a “political interest group” (Saldarini). On the other hand, competition with rival groups was fierce and, fueled by the fervor of religious conviction, mutual denunciations were harsh. The tone of the pre-70 party debates found in rabbinic literature, the polemic against opponents found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Pharisees are apparently reproached as “seekers of smooth things”; see Dead Sea Scrolls), and the controversies and condemnations which fill the pages of the Gospels all attest to the bitter divisiveness which marked and (according to rabbinic literature) marred pre-destruction Judaism. As far as we can tell, Pharisaism was a phenomenon of the pre-70 period. To depict the post-70 situation as the triumph of the Pharisees is oversimplistic and misleading. It was not until years later that the rabbis established effective leadership of the people; when they did so, they did not appear as Pharisees. 3. The Tradition of the Pharisees. The adoption by Pharisees (and by later rabbis) of non-biblical prescriptions as binding law was on their part programmatic; for opponents, it served as an easy target for attack (Ant. 13.10.6 §297; Mk 7:6–13; perhaps 1QH 4:10). Much work remains to be done to define (where possible) the precise content of the Pharisaic tradition. Particular attention was clearly given to matters of ritual purity and tithing, since the failure of the general populace to observe these laws according to Pharisaic norms compelled the Pharisees to regulate their own affairs in such a way as would ensure that their food was properly prepared. Many of the rulings preserved in rabbinic literature which can be traced with some confidence back to the Pharisees of the pre- 70 era are in fact “party law” of this kind: not prescriptions thought to represent God’s will for all Israel but necessary adaptations and applications of Pharisaic ideals to a situation in which the majority of Jews (the so-called people of the land) were, by Pharisaic standards, insufficiently observant. Rabbinic literature attests to distinctions drawn between the “people of the land,” the “reliable” (i.e., people who could be trusted to observe certain requirements of purity and tithing), and full-fledged “associates” who had pledged to conform with defined standards, including the attempt to maintain ritual purity while eating ordinary meals. Relations between ordinary people and such associates inevitably required some definition. For example, the associate could not eat with outsiders. To some extent tithes had to be paid on what was purchased from a non-member, while foodstuff that was wet (and hence specially susceptible to impurity) could not be purchased from outsiders. The state of the rules for associates in the time of Jesus is not known, nor can we be sure that all Pharisees were associates. But these rules do seem to reflect Pharisaic ideals and illustrate the Pharisaic goal of maintaining higher standards of ritual purity than were observed by ordinary Jews.

1QH Hôdāyôṭ or Thanksgiving Hymns from Qumran Cave 1 Generally, NT references are insufficiently specific to be of much help in defining Pharisaic legal positions. As exceptions we may note the use made of Mark 7:10–12 by A. I. Baumgarten and of Matthew 23:16–22 by S. Lieberman. 4. Pharisees in the Gospels. In proclaiming to Israel the dawning reign of God, Jesus demanded a response quite different from that sought by the Pharisees, who summoned the nation to adhere to Torah’s laws as interpreted by Pharisaic scribes. Since both were competing for the allegiance of the masses, conflict and mutual attempts to discred it might seem inevitable. Any perceived departure from Torah on the part of Jesus or his disciples was liable to be attacked by Pharisees. Disputes arising from apparent violations of Sabbath laws are especially frequent in the Gospels. Pharisees could be counted on to cite Deuteronomy 24 against Jesus’ (widely attested) condemnation of divorce (Mk 10:2–9). Again, Jesus’ open association (even at mealtimes) with notorious sinners could hardly have passed uncontested, providing as it did a stark contrast with Pharisaic efforts to cultivate careful adherence to the laws and Pharisaic scruples about mealtime company. In each of these cases, the Pharisees appear in the Gospels appropriately enough as the party advocating precision (akribeia) in the interpretation and performance of the Mosaic code. The seriousness with which Pharisees would have regarded Jesus’ departures from their norms is a matter of some debate. In a lengthy review of the issue E. P. Sanders (1990) has suggested that even if the conflict stories in the Gospels are historically reliable (and Sanders regards this as dubious), no significant conflict was involved. Disputes between groups within the Pharisaic movement, he suggests, were at least as substantial as were Pharisaic differences from the Sadducees. Yet the Pharisees had learned to tolerate those who did not share their views, worshiped with them at the Temple, and certainly did not regard those whose opinions on details of observance differed from their own as “sinners” outside the pale of true Israel. The latter category was restricted to those who lived in flagrant transgression of the fundamental laws of Israel’s covenant. J. D. G. Dunn, responding to an earlier form of Sanders’s position (1985), thinks such a “quietistic” portrayal of Pharisees, absorbed in their own affairs and uncritical of others, highly unrealistic. And that Pharisees would have labelled outsiders to their ranks as “sinners” he finds plausible, given the evidence for contemporary usage of the term to disparage outsiders to one’s faction. On the latter point, and as far as the Gospel evidence is concerned, Sanders’s position is to be favored. The “sinners” whose company Jesus kept were not so merely from a factional, Pharisaic viewpoint: It is not simply Pharisees, but “this generation,” which reproaches his behavior (Mt 11:16–19). Furthermore, the use of the term for tax collectors (see Taxes) and prostitutes (Mk 2:16; Lk 7:37; 19:7; etc.) and Jesus’ acceptance of it as a designation of his companions (Mk 2:17; cf. Lk 7:47; Mt 21:31) make it clear that the notoriously wicked are intended. On the other hand, there seems little point in attempting to establish how Pharisees would have responded to Jesus, or how accurately the Gospels portray their response, on the basis of the degree to which he departed from their norms. That would be a pressing issue only if deviation from Pharisaic standards constituted a crime for which Jesus was formally charged, but the Gospels do not suggest this happened. They do depict Jesus as rousing Pharisaic hostility by his actions, a claim which is not easy to dismiss. After all, the passion with which a person responds when their convictions are ignored and their sensibilities offended often says more about their personality, and even about other aspects of their relations with the offender, than about the seriousness of the offense. Moreover, the tolerance which Sanders finds characteristic of the Pharisees as a group (a tolerance which, incidentally, he believes they had only recently learned, and which he maintains without considering the behavior of Paul the Pharisee) can hardly be guaranteed of all its members. Finally, tolerance, even if a part, is not the whole explanation for Pharisaic worship with Sadducees and others at the Temple: Their own commitment to the institution, combined with the impossibility of dictating its procedures, must surely be taken into account. The broad picture of Pharisees in conflict with Jesus seems well rooted in the Gospel tradition. It also seems consistent with, and inevitable in the light of, their different understandings of the divine will. For Jesus’ part the “old wineskins” could not contain “new wine” (Mk 2:22; see Wine). Believing that a new divine initiative had begun, the Jesus of the Gospels is exasperated by Pharisaic failure to discern and respond to the significance of the moment (Mk 2:19; 8:11–12; cf. Mt 21:28–32; 23:13). In the well-known parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11–32) Jesus defends his association with “sinners” by arguing in effect that God is even now demonstrating his love to the most profligate of his people. Those of the Pharisaic ilk are represented in the figure of the sulking older brother, whose offended sensibilities keep him from partaking of the family feast. The criticisms directed in the Gospels against the Pharisees go beyond their failure to respond to the message of the kingdom. Pharisaic claims of meticulous observance are depicted as leading both to pride (Mt 23:5–7; Lk 11:43; cf. Ant. 17.2.4 §41) and to contempt for the less observant—an unwarranted contempt, since the latter in turn are portrayed as more sensitive to their failings, more open to Jesus’ proclamation of God’s sovereignty and love (Lk 7:37–50; 15:1–32; 18:9–14; 19:1–10). Again, the attention to the minutiae of tithing and ritual purity required by Pharisaic scruples would inevitably appear to an opponent with a different focus as evidence of distorted perspectives; hence the attack on those who tithe mint, dill and cummin while neglecting the essentials of the Law; the charge that cleansing cups is combined by Pharisees with inner corruption (Mt 23:23, 25–26; cf. the charge of corruption in Ant. 17.2.4 §41–45). Jesus’ penchant for the striking picture and his attacks on expressions of Pharisaic piety are both to be recognized in the caricature of people who strain out gnats and swallow camels (Mt 23:24), or who turn the appointed hour of prayer into a recitation of their merits (Lk 18:9–12). Charges of this sort are rooted in different views of Israel’s task and opportunity, and were certainly raised already in the lifetime of Jesus. That confrontation continued in the post-resurrection period can be seen in the attempts of the Pharisee Paul to show his “zeal” for his ancestral faith by persecuting the church (Phil 3:5–6; cf. Gal 1:13–14). The Gospels’ depictions of Pharisees reflect both memories from the career of Jesus and subsequent developments in the Christian communities. 4.1. Mark. Mark’s community was scarcely one which experienced Pharisaic opposition at firsthand; indeed, the Evangelist must explain Jewish customs for his readers (7:1–4). Part of the reason Pharisees are remembered may well be that some account had to be given, in a Gospel of the crucified Son of God (see Son of God), of how his appearance roused hostility. Conflicts arise over Jesus’ association with sinners (2:16) and the failure of Jesus or his disciples to conform to norms of fasting (2:18), Sabbath observance (2:24; 3:2) and purity (7:5). The propriety of divorce is also disputed (10:2–9). The confrontations are said to lead Pharisees to plot against Jesus (3:6). Further inquiries, with malicious intent, are brought to Jesus (8:11; 12:13). The Markan Jesus responds, sometimes sharply (cf. 7:6–13), to such queries, but otherwise he devotes no attention to Pharisees. Clearly the teaching of the Pharisees represented no attraction for Mark’s readers. On the contrary, the old order has passed for Mark (2:22). Its food laws, the subject of considerable controversy in parts of the early church, are perceived in Mark as irrelevant and unproblematic (7:19). Consequently, the Pharisaic endeavor can only be seen as serving no purpose. But the hostility which the Pharisees showed toward Jesus remains a part of the tradition and determines their portrayal as hypocrites, unfaithful to God’s Word in the past (7:6–13) and insensitive to his dealings in the present (8:11–12). Worth noting, however, is Mark 12:28–34. Since the scribe who admired Jesus’ reply to the Sadducees was probably a Pharisee, the passage suggests that there were Pharisees whose views of what is fundamental overlapped substantially with those of Jesus. But Mark himself makes no mention of the scribe’s party affiliation. 4.2. Matthew. Matthew’s community, which includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians, clearly lives in an environment with a noticeable Jewish presence. Relations are tense, and the Matthean community perceives itself to be the object of persecution (cf. 5:10–12; 10:17–18; 23:34). Much in the Gospel is intended to support Matthew’s claim, maintained in the teeth of Jewish counter-claims, that the appearance of Jesus represents the climax of Israel’s sacred history (most emphatically, 5:17) and that followers of Jesus—Jews and Gentiles alike—have displaced the unbelieving and disobedient “sons of the kingdom” as the people of God (8:10–12; 21:43). Great emphasis is placed on the differences to be observed between the piety of those who follow Jesus and that of Jews who do not: The latter is portrayed as superficial, hypocritical (see Hypocrite) and ostentatious (5:20; 6:1–18). Pharisees, the epitome of such religiosity (23:4–7), are always hostile to Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, and the attention paid to their teaching witnesses to its relevance for Matthew’s readers (especially chap. 23). Though some would see in Matthew a Christian response to Pharisaic hegemony within Judaism of the post-70 period, it is unlikely that contemporaries perceived Judaism in those terms. The roots of the anti- Pharisaic polemic are better seen in the factiousness prevailing before the war. On the other hand, Garland has shown the Evangelist’s intention in assembling the “woes” of Matthew 23 (see Blessing and Woe): The chapter reaches its climax in verses 35–39 (see v. 38) and is deliberately juxtaposed with prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction in chapter 24. Thus the Evangelist is attributing Jerusalem’s devastation to divine judgment on the sins of the “scribes and Pharisees” as false leaders of the people. 4.3. Luke. Luke’s Pharisees present a more complex picture. In part this is because they appear in Acts as well, where they are at times comparatively sympathetic to the Christian movement (Acts 5:33–39; 23:9; cf. 15:5). Paul’s own Pharisaic ties are exploited and never explicitly renounced (23:6; 26:5; cf. 22:3). In Luke Jesus eats in the homes of Pharisees (7:36; 11:37; 14:1) and is warned by Pharisees of Herod’s plots (13:31). On the other hand, conflicts remain (5:21, 30–35; 6:1–11; 15:2), as do the familiar charges of hypocrisy (11:38–41; 12:1), distorted perspectives (11:42), ostentation (11:43–44) and self-righteousness (18:9–14). To these, new accusations (16:14) and instances of ill-will (19:39) have been added. It is unlikely that Pharisaism had a contemporary relevance for Luke. The negative depiction which had become established in the tradition is preserved. Indeed, Pharisees serve Luke’s purposes in providing a foil for Jesus’ attitude toward sinners (cf. particularly the parable of the prodigal son, peculiar to Luke [15:11–32]). Still, the negative note is tempered somewhat by Luke’s desire to show continuity between the Christian movement and its Jewish heritage (Lk 24:25–27; Acts 23:6; 25:14–15; 26:6–7, 22–23; 28:20). 4.4. John. As a rule, John paints Judaism with a broad brush. Jesus’ opponents appear often simply as “Jews” without more specific identification (see John, Gospel of). Where Pharisees do figure, they are often represented as holding positions of power and acting in collaboration with other authorities (3:1; 7:32, 45; 11:47, 57; 12:42; 18:3). One at least is sympathetic toward Jesus (3:1; 7:50–51), but hostility predominates. The opposition of Pharisees is perceptively motivated in their own terms in 9:16; elsewhere it is attributed to spiritual obstinacy (9:39–41). 5. Conclusion. Gospel texts depicting certain Pharisees, when detached from their historical context and seen as portraying Jewish piety as a whole, have prevented Christians from arriving at a sympathetic understanding of Judaism. The concern of much contemporary scholarship to portray Judaism (and Pharisaism) in its own terms represents an important corrective. But it must be combined with an insistence on reading the Gospels in their historical setting. Pharisees and the earliest followers of Jesus—all Jews—stood for alter native visions of the destiny and responsibilities of Israel. Doubtless there lie at the root of some of the mutual denunciations instances of abuse and the failure of behavior to match ideals, At a deeper level, however, lay the conflict of convictions deeply held about the course which Israel must pursue, and that from which they must turn, if they were to fulfill their divine calling (cf. Rom 10:2; the career of Paul saw him fervently maintain both sides of the dispute). First-century Judaism was the setting for many such disputes, the result of common convictions about Israel’s past combined with different readings of what 12 Israel’s God now demanded of his people. See also JUDAISM; LAW; RABBINIC TRADITIONS AND WRITINGS; SCRIBES.

5 – Sadducees: realism via cooperation with Rome Least popular with ordinary Jews Landed aristocrats of Jerusalem “Like Washington D.C. lawyers” Refused the doctrine of the Resurrection Josephus particularly vocal about their reputation o “Men of highest standing…but accomplished almost nothing” o “Even among themselves rather boorish…as rude to one another as to aliens” o Antiquities 18:16-17, Jewish War 2.164-65 Realists eager to negotiate peace with Rome, against the Pharisees Nothing to do with Jesus because of his talk about a kingdom they couldn’t control Mark 12:18-27 – discussion about the woman with 7 husbands “you are quite wrong” Acts 4 – they are a part of the Jewish Council that Peter and John have to appear before Hitched their political wagon to the Herodians – see article below

sectarian Judaism. Ideas or movements within Judaism that deviate from the norm (Latin secta, “party, faction”). In the NT, “sect” (Gk hairesis) is used to describe the Pharisees (Acts 15:5; 26:5), Sadducees (5:17) and the early Christians (24:5, 14; 28:22). The community at Qumran is sometimes referred to as another form of sectarian Judaism. Today, most scholars recognize that first-century Palestinian Judaism was pluralistic and that there was no monolithic, normative Judaism. For this reason, when dealing with this period it is preferable to speak of Judaisms or types of Judaism rather than Judaism.13

5. The Herodians. The Herodians were influential persons who were partisans of the Herodian dynasty. They are mentioned three times in the NT, dealing with two incidents where they joined with the Pharisees in their opposition to Jesus. The first incident took place in Galilee immediately after Jesus healed the man with the withered hand, and the Herodians and the Pharisees sought to destroy Jesus (Mk 3:6). The second episode was in

12Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 609 13Patzia, Arthur G. ; Petrotta, Anthony J.: Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2002, S. 103 Jerusalem when the Pharisees and the Herodians tried to incriminate Jesus regarding the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Mt 22:16 par. Mk 12:13). The Herodians are not mentioned in Luke or John. The origin of the name has been debated. Some think that the ending of their name reflects the Latin suffix -ianus which is appended to adjectives, thus making it a substantive meaning that they were of the household of Herod, that is, domestic servants. Others think that it is a Greek suffix meaning that they were officers or agents of Herod. However, in the Gospel narratives they are not portrayed as either domestic servants or officers of Herod but as influential people whose outlook was friendly to the Herodian rule and consequently to the Roman rule upon which it rested. The issue comes to the forefront in Mark 8:15 and Matthew 16:6 where in Mark we read of the “leaven of Herod” and the Matthean parallel refers to the “leaven of the Sadducees.” This problem becomes more critical if the secondary Markan reading, “leaven of the Herodians” (P45, θ ϝ1, 13), is the correct one. The problem with this passage is not the inter pretation but the question of whether the Sadducees and the Herod(ians) are the same? At first this seems impossible because Herod the Great tried to discredit the Hasmonean house. Furthermore, he and his grandson Agrippa I never selected a high priest from among the Sadducees, who were pro-Hasmonean, but rather from the house of Boethus. However, a reversal of this policy occurred between Herod’s son Archelaus’s deposition in A.D. 6 and Agrippa I’s acquisition of Judea in A.D. 41. At that time most of the high priests came from the Sadducean house of Annas because the province of Judea was not under Herodi an rule but under direct Roman rule of the prefects. It seems probable, then, that the Boethusians, being pro-Herodian, were really the Herodians and the Sadducees were pro-Hasmonean. Actually, later rabbinic sources used the Boethusian name inter changeably with that of the Sadducees (m. Menaḥ 10.3). It may well be that the Sadducees and the Herodians would have been close if not identical religiously and economically. Thus, the Herodians were politically affiliated with the Herodian house, but they were religiously and economically affiliated with the Sadducees. However, the political distinctions between the Sadducees and Herodians were blurred with the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (a Hasmonean on her mother’s side). It could be that Herod Antipas married Herodias to gain Sadducean support. Hence, the Herodians and the Sadducees would have been on the same side politically against the Pharisees, the Herodians being pro-Herodian government while the Pharisees were both anti-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian. This is borne out in Mark 8:15 and Matthew 16:6, 12 where the Pharisees and the Sadducees/Herodians are contrary parties opposing Jesus. In summary, the Herodians were theologically in agreement with the Sadducees and politically both of these parties would have been the opposite of the Pharisees who were anti-Hasmonean, anti-Herodian and anti-Roman. The Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the rule of the Herods and Rome, whereas the Herodians wanted to preserve the Herodian rule. However, the Herodians and the Pharisees worked together to oppose Jesus, because he was introducing a new kingdom (see Kingdom of God) that neither wanted.14

Hasmoneans, Hasmonean dynasty. The family name of the Maccabean priestly and kingly family who ruled over Israel from the 160s B.C. until the Romans captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C. The story of the Hasmoneans is told in 1 and 2 Maccabees. The name “Hasmonean” is not used in those texts, but it is used by Josephus, our other important historical source for the events that led to the Hasmonean rule. The name seems to come from an older ancestral name, Hašmȏnay (Gk Asmōnaios in Josephus). Under the Hasmonean dynasty the kingdom of Judah extended its borders to an extent equal to the borders that King David established during his reign. In the end the Hasmonean dynasty fell prey to the competing factions that had emerged in the region under its rule, and, of course, the power of the new Roman Empire that brought “peace” to a region that the Hellenistic rulers had been unable to maintain. See also pax Romana.15

par. parallel passage in another/other Gospel(s) m. Mishna 14Green, Joel B. ; McKnight, Scot ; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1992, S. 325 15Patzia, Arthur G. ; Petrotta, Anthony J.: Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2002, S. 54