¹ Graetz, H., Geschichte der Juden, 5 ed., ed. Braun, M. (Leipzig, 1900-1905), III.i, 250, 258Google Scholar; III.ii, 431f., 458ff.; Jost, J., Geschichte des Judentums und seiner Secten, I Abt. (Leipzig, 1857), 327, 436, 443Google Scholar. JOST differs with GRAETZ by denying the Zealots' relation to the Shammaites (p. 327) and in other details, but accepts the connection of the party with Judas.

² Derenbourg, J., Essai sur lhistoire et la géographie de la Palestine, … I, Histoire de la Palestine …. (Paris, 1867), 195 n. 2; 28f.; 20f.; 472fGoogle Scholar.

³ Schürer, E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3-4 ed. (Leipzig, 1901-1911), 4 vols.; I, 48fGoogle Scholar. (with bibliography); 57ff., etc.; I, 487 n. 139 is contradicted by III, 300 — the author of The Assumption of Moses was not a Zealot, after all.

⁴ Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (Stuttgart, 1921), 3 vols.; II, 402ffGoogle Scholar. (contrary to SchüRer, Judas the Galilean and Judas the son of Hezekiah were not identical).

⁵ Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, 3 ed., ed. Gressmann, H. (Tübingen, 1926Google Scholar; HábNT 21), 87f.

⁶ Baron, S., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2 ed. (N.Y., 1952), II, 46ff.; 58, 74, 101, 346 n. 55Google Scholar.

⁷ Yadin, Y., Masada, Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand (N.Y., 1966)Google Scholar.

⁸ Others are, e.g., Lightly, J., Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus (London, 1925), 323ff.,Google Scholar; Guinebert, C., The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, tr. Hooke, S. (London, 1939)Google Scholar. (For G. the Zealots were less an organization founded by a single individual than a movement generated by a common state of mind — p. 170; cp. 39f., 169f. In this respect G. is followed by Förster, W., Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, 3 ed., tr. Harris, G. (Edinburgh, 1964)Google Scholar, who accordingly puts the origin of the Zealots in the last days of Herod, 89f. (cp. 99f., 104f., etc.), and by Cullmann, O., Die Bedeutung der Zelotenbewegung für das Neue Testament, in Vorträge und Aufsätze, 1925-1962, ed. Frölich, K. (Zürich, 1966), 292ffGoogle Scholar. Guignebert, , Förster, , and Cullmann, all think sicarii a term applied to the Zealots in generalGoogle Scholar; similarly Momigliano, A., Rebellion within the Empire, iv-vii, in the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X (Cambridge, 1934), 852.Google Scholar, and Stumpff, , ζηλόω, ζηλωτής, ThWb II (1935), 884ffGoogle Scholar. (undistinguished). Simon, M., Les Sectes juives au temps de Jésu (Paris, 1960), was less cautious and his statement (p. 39)Google Scholar, ”Josèphe la qualifie (sc. la secte des Zélotes) d'école philosophique — au même litre que les Pharisiens,” is false.

⁹ Kohler, K., Zealots, in The Jewish Encyclopedia, XII (1906), 639ff.,Google Scholar; Wer waren die Zeloten oder Kannaim? in Festschrift zu Ehren des Dr. A. Harkavy, edd. Günzburg, D. von and Markon, I. (St. Petersburg, 1908), 6ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ JE XII, 640.

¹¹ Festschrift … Harkavy,13.

¹² I Mace. 7:13ff.

¹³ Josephus, , Ant. XVIII.23Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Numbers 25; I Kings 18:40; 19:10.

¹⁵ JE XII, 643.

¹⁶ Schlatter, A., Geschichte Israels von Alexander dem Grossen bis Hadrian, 3 ed. (Stuttgart, 1925), 261ff. (his attempt to rearrange Josephus has won no praise)Google Scholar; Die Theologi ds Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Gütersloh, 1932), 214ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Theologie, 224; contrast MomiclÏano's, realistic evaluation of the economic motives of those who resisted Roman rule, CAH X, 853Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Farmer, W., Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (N.Y. 1956), 24, n. 3Google Scholar(with a good review of the literature, 25-44); see also his article Zealot, , IDB IV (1962), 9ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Jackson, F. and Lake, K., The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, Vol. I, Prolegomena I, 421ff.Google Scholar; that the Appendix (A. The Zealots) was written by LAKE is stated by Jackson, F. in Josephus and the Jews (N.Y., 1930), 264 n. 2Google Scholar.

²⁰ E.g., p. 424, ”Schürer's statement that Judas ben Hezekiah is 'sicherlich' the same as Judas of Galilee seems … quite indefensible, except in so far as the use of 'sicherlich' in theological writing indicates the combination of insufficient evidence with strongly held opinion.”

²¹ ”No doubt the Fourth Philosophy supplied the intellectual attitude from which the Zealots and the Sicarii started, but there is no possibility of clearness in historical writing if the name of a political party be given to its logical antecedents,” p. 422.

²² 424f LAKE also pointed out the importance of the reference to the apostle, Simon, , ”called the zealot” (Lk. 6:15; Acts 1:13), in shaping the common opinionGoogle Scholar.

²³ Drexler, H., Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des jüdischen Aufstandes 66–70Google Scholar, Klio 19 (1925), 277ff., esp. 284-87Google Scholar.

²⁴ Moore, G., Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies according to Josephus, HTR 22 (1929), 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass., 1927-1930), 3 volsGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Zeitl, S., Judaism as a Religion, JQR, N.S. 34 (1943-1944); 351 n. 364Google Scholar. He refers to his own work, Who Crucified Jesus? (4 ed., N.Y., 1964Google Scholar) which does not make this point but does acknowledge (p. vii) the use of LAKE'S work for its text of Acts.

²⁷ Zealots, 423. We shall come back to this question.

²⁸ First, I understand, in Keshèummah nilhemet ‘al herutah’, which I have not seen; subsequently in Historia shel habayit hasheni, 2 ed. (Jerusalem, 1950), 5 vols., esp. IV, 200ff.; V, 29ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Ant. XVI.25; KLAUSNER, IV, 201f.

³⁰ IV, 202.

³¹ Ant. XVIII.25; KLAUSNER could also have cited the similar statements in XVIII.6 and 8-10, and other passages.

³² So the passages in question were understood by Abel, F., Histoire de la Palestine (Paris, 1952), 2 vols., I, 425Google Scholar. Of all scholars who have dealt with the question, ABEL and LAKE were probably the two best trained in Greek and best qualified to judge the exact significance of Josephus' Greek expressions. ABEL says nothing of KLAUSNER (who was his neighbor in Jerusalem) nor of the relations between the Zealots and the Sicarii.

³³ This was already noticed by Holtzmann, O., Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen, 1906), 206Google Scholar; recently, e.g., Hengel, M., Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961), 11Google Scholar.

³⁴ To argue, as KLAUSNER does (IV, 202), that since JOSEPHUS' account of the Zealots' religious devotion, love of liberty, and self-sacrifice fits the ”fourth philosophy,” therefore the two groups must have been one and the same party, is fallacious.

³⁵ Brandon, S., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London, 1957), 105 n. i, citing Ant. XV.i.16 (read i.6; i.e., XVIII.23-25, discussed above); XX.v.2 (102); War II.117f.; 433-40; IV.158-161. Of these the last refers to the Zealots but not Judas or his descendants, the preceding ones to Judas and his descendants, but not to the Zealots. Nothing in any of them indicates a connection between the two groups. Brandon's later publications on the subject, The Zealots: the Jewish Resistance against Rome, A.D. 6-73,Google ScholarHistory Today 15 (1965), 632ff.Google Scholar, and Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967), 26ff.Google Scholar, add nothing of importance to the discussion.

³⁶ Acts 5.-37.

³⁷ Oxford, 1958, revised, augmented and republished as The Dead Sea Scrolls, a new historical approach (N.Y., 1965); I cite from this latter editionGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Martin, M., review of The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblica 40 (1959), 48fGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Zeitln, S., The Idolatry of the Dead Sea Scrolls, JQR 48 (1957-1958), 256fGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ The Dead Sea Scrolls, 16ff. That there were some Zealots among those who fled to Jardes (War VII.215, cp VI.92) does not prove that all were Zealots.

⁴¹ The Zealots in the War of 66-73, Jnl. of Sem. Studies 4 (1959), 332ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² The Zealots in the War, 334.

⁴³ Thackeray's, words are, ”his suite of armed fanatics” (Josephus, vol. II [London, 1927]Google Scholar, ad. loc.). Roth's objection to this translation (The Zealots in the War, 332, n. 2) are grounded on the fact that it does not suit his theory. Michel, O. and Bauernfed, O. (Flavins Josephus, De Bella Judaico, Bd. I [Bad Homburg, 1960], ad. loc.) agree withGoogle ScholarThackeray, , ”ein Schar bewaffneter Eiferer,”Google Scholar but in their note they try to explain that both Menahem and his opponents (who were then about to murder him) were ”Zeloten” — there had been a split in the party (but JOSEPHUS had neglected to mention it, no doubt because it was essential for an understanding of the events). Drexler, , Untersuchungen, 286Google Scholar, also agrees with THACKERAY; so does Baumbach, , Zeloten, 733 (see below, n. 82)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Flavii Josephi … Opera, ed. Weidan, M. (Coloniae, 1691), War II.xviii of the Latin text (p. 812). The title page attributes the Latin translation to Rufinus. On its quality seeGoogle ScholarDESTON, J. Von, De Flam Josephi bello iudafco recensendo, (Prog. Kiel, 1889), 15Google Scholar. ”Quae (antiqua versio latina) sive Rufini Aquiliensis fuit, id quod vulgo creditur, sive Hieronymi, facta certe est ab homine et graecae et latinae linguae satis perito, quique et graeca verba plerumque recte interpretaretur et pro suae aetatis (IV c.) indole … satis eleganter latino sermone redderet.”

⁴⁵ Hegesippi qui dicitur historiae liri V, ed. Ussani, V., vol. I (Vienna, 1932), Book II.x.6, ”stipatoribus tamquam regio more comitantibus.”Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Zealots in the War, 344

⁴⁷ Zealots in the War, 334? the correct refs. are ARN, text, ch. 6, end; text, ch. 13, middle (ed. S. Shechter, N.Y., 1945, 31f).

⁴⁸ This is obvious for references to periods after the first revolt; for others, the same conclusion has been defended by B. SALOMONSEN, Some Remarks on the Zealots with Special Regard to the Term 'Quanna'i' in Rabbinic Literature, NTS 2 (1965-1966), 168ff.Google Scholar, but his arguments are even worse than Roth's. His article is rich in references to works on the Zealots by assorted cranks — a handy guide to what should not be read.

⁴⁹ Numbers Rabba 20.26 on Num. 25:7 represents Phineas, the model zealot, hiding the blade of his spear in his garment, so as to get past the guards of the man he intended to murder; the Sicarfi were said to hide their swords in their garments (Ant. XX.14, etc.); ergo the Zealots were the Sicarii.

⁵⁰ Zealots in the War, 337.

⁵¹ War II.442-48.

⁵² Note: On p. 339 — Acts 21:38 is not intended to prove the Egyptian a sicarius, but the centurion an ignoramus. P. 340 — The priestly group which murdered Menahem was not ”moderate,” it had begun the revolt. P. 341 —Once again there is no indication that the Masada Sicarii were ever Zealots, nor that the Jerusalem Zealots ever ”adhered to the 'Fourth Philosophy.'” P. 346 —”It is … impossible … to distiguish guiding principles,” because he has given the Zealots a creed they never held and made Zealots of a body who never were so; the resultant muddle is explicable only by his determination to save what he could of his thesis and his face. P. 348 — That the groups in control of Masada, Machaerus, and Herodium are all called λησταί does not prove them all one party; λησταί is simply ”robbers” and is applied by JOSEPHUS to all robber bands regardless of their principles, or lack of them, see Hengel, , Zeloten, 25ff. and esp. 35ff. vs.Google ScholarRengstorf, , ληστής ThWb IV (1942), 22ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ The Zealots — a Jewish Religious Sect, Judaism 8 (1959), 33ff; The Zealots, and Qumran, : The Basic Issue, Revue de Qumran 2 (1959-1960), 81ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ Or his immediate source's? Late second century A.D.?

⁵⁵ Philosopkumena (= Refutation of All the Heresies) IX.26.

⁵⁶ See Smith, M., The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philo-sophumena, HUCA 29 (1958), 28fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁷ Hengel, M., Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961Google Scholar; Arbeiten zür Geschchte des Spät-judentums unå Urchristentums, I).

⁵⁸ Zeloten, 21f., etc. As to sicarii, however, there is an honorable exception, 50f., where HENGEL recognizes that the term has both a general and a specific use, but draws from this fact the unlikely conclusion that divisions in the liberation movement developed only in 66, which he thinks the earliest date for which JOSEPHUS' specific use of the term sicarii (to refer to the party led by Judas' descendants) can be demonstrated. But in War VII.253f; JOSEPHUS speaks of the sicarii as uniting to form a definite organization in the days of Judas the Galilean — and the presumption is strong that this was the organization founded by Judas and led by his descendants, cp. VII.262 (πρώτοί) If so, Zeloten, 67, is mistaken in making the party of Judas different from and prior to the Sicarfi.

⁵⁹ Zeloten, 66; the alleged reason — that the adjective is here determined and without further specification — is false; the specification αὐτού is indicated by the context and was understood by the ancient translators, see above at notes 44 and 45.

⁶⁰ Zeloten, 68.

⁶¹ Zeloten, 72f.

⁶² Zeloten, 73.

⁶³ Zeloten, 65, 2400 men, War V.248ff., vs. 10,000 followers of Simon ben Giora, 6,000 of John of Gischala; and 5,000 Idumaeans.

⁶⁴ Zeloten, 67.

⁶⁵ War VIII.263, 265, 267, 268-70.

⁶⁶ War VII.254, 262, 324. I see no reason to doubt that these passages refer to the organization of the party and its attempt to start a revolt in the days of Judas of Galilee. Drexler's supposition that they refer to otherwise unknown events of 66 or thereabouts (Untershungen, 286) seems to me groundless.

⁶⁷ Zeloten, 86ff., whence the following six arguments are derived.

⁶⁸ See above, following n. 30.

⁶⁹ In fact, the extensive documentation of all of these ideas makes it impossible to consider any of them characteristic of either the Zealots or the Sicarii. Presumably these sects were distinguished, as were the other Jewish sects of the time, less by their theological concepts than by the details of their halakic rulings and, of course, by personal and historical conflicts. On the differentiation of ancient Jewish sects (including Christianity) see Smith, M., The Dead Sea Sect in Relation to Ancient Judaism, NTS 7 (1960-1961), 347ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ His discussions of prophecy (235ff.), exegesis (240f.), the wilderness (255ff), and martyrdom and suicide (262ff.) involve a number of identifications of historical figures as Zealots, but these are purely conjectural and need not be refuted. In his account of the resistance to Rome as a ”holy war” two errors on p. 289 may be mentioned: there is no evidence that Eleazar ben Dinai had any connection either with the Zealots or with the Sicarii (and JOSEPHUS would almost certainly have mentioned such a connection had any been known or suspected); the gathering into Jerusalem of bands from all over the country (War IV.135) did not precede but followed Menahem's putsch and death (War II.442-47) and Mena-hem cannot plausibly be represented as the leader of those who joined his murderers. HENGEL supposes (289, n. 5) that after Menahem's death ”the war probably ceased to be a holy war.” At least the survivors of Judas' sect seem to have done nothing substantial for it; they sat it out on Masada. But it is only then that the Zealots, as an organized group, appear. I believe that the ancient Jews would have considered any war in which they were engaged a holy war. Therefore the appearance of elements of holy war theory and practice is not evidence for the existence of any special organization; it testifies only to the common Old Testament background.

⁷¹ Zeloten, 324, 333ff.

⁷² Zeloten, 336.

⁷³ Ant. XX.102.

⁷⁴ Zeloten, 341.

⁷⁵ War II.254, 258; to interpret II.264 as reporting the coöperation of an organization of ληστρικοί with an organization of γόητς (!—so HENGEL, 239) is amusing. What the Greek means, however, is that the two sorts of fanatics, by their different actions, produced a common effect — that of stirring up the people.

⁷⁶ E.g., the interpretation of Mk. 14:48 to mean, ”as against a Zealot,” Zeloten, 346.

⁷⁷ Contrast Zeloten, 357ff.

⁷⁸ War II.445-49.

⁷⁹ War II.562-68. The γόητς that was gradually won over to Eleazar was that of Jerusalem.

⁸⁰ Zeitlin, S., Zealots and Sicarii, JBL 82 (1962), 395ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸¹ Salomonsen, B., Nogle synspunkte fra den nyere debat omkring Zeloterne, Dansk Teologisk Tidskrft 27 (1964), 149ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸² Baumbach, G., Zeloten und Sikarier, ThLz 90 (1965), 727ffGoogle Scholar; his Bemerkungen zum Freiheitsverstandnis der zelotischen Bewegung, TLZ 92 (1967). 257ff., reports a popular development of the same ideasGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁸ JACKSON, J. Foakes, Josephus and the Jews (N.Y., 1930), 264Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Cp. War II.8 (άν⋯ρ Γαλιλαίος); 433 (τού καλουμένου Γαλιλαίον); Ant. XVIII. 4 (Γαυλανανίτης ⋯ν⋯ρ ⋯κ πόλεως δνομαΓάμαλα); 23 (ό Γαλιλαίος); XX.102 (του Γαλιλαιου)

⁸⁵ War IV.6.

⁸⁶ War VII.20-7.

⁸⁷ Above, at notes 43 and ff

⁸⁸ War IV.160.

⁸⁹ War IV.138-61.

⁹⁰ War IV.162, 193-207.

⁹¹ On Driver, G.. The Judean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar, see the crushing review of VAUX, R. De, The Judean Scrolls. 2Google Scholar. Essenes, or Zealots, , NTS 13 (1966), 89ffGoogle Scholar. Daniel, C., Esséniens, Zélotes, et Sicaires, Numen 13 (1966), 88ff.Google Scholar, is ignorant non-sense. On Brandon, , Jesus and the Zealots, see above, n. 35. (The argument that JOSEPHUS did not call the Zealots by their name because the name was an honorable one and he did not wish to admit their moral claims is refuted by the fact that he does call them by their name, often, and emphatically.)Google ScholarWegenset, K., Zeloten, RE R₂ XVIII (1967), 2474ff., abbreviates HENGEL — a pity, since it will probably be quoted as Scripture by generations of graduate students.Google ScholarHoenig, S.Google Scholar, The Sicarii in Masada, , Traditio (1970), 5ff.Google Scholar, has applied the opinions of ZEITLIN to the propaganda of YADIN, with devastating effect. V. NIKIPROWETZSKY's resume of his lectures on the Zealots (quoted in Dupont-SOMMER, A., Histoire ancienne de l'orient, Annuaire, École pratique des hautes études, IV^e section, 1969-1970, 132ff.) reports an attempt to compromise between the common opinion and that of ZEITLIN. N. was forced to suppose JOSEPHUS' terminology inaccurate; it is easier to sacrifice his theories than JOSEPHUS' statements. A concluding touch of humor was furnished by the ex cathedra comment of the directeur d'études (DUPONT-SOMMER) on ”zealots” and sicarii, ”En fait, Josèphe emploie indifférement l'un ou l'autre terme.”Google ScholarKingdom, H., Who Were the Zealots and Their Leaders in A.D. 66? NTS 17 (1970), 68 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. reviews the evidence in Josephus and corrects some details of LAKE's account but shows almost no knowledge of te rest of the discussion and bumbles to the usual incredible conclusion that the ”zealots” of Menahern and their priestly murderers were one and the same party.

⁹² Since we never hear what Judas' party did call themselves, it is not unlikely that the name was ”Israel,” that is, that they claimed to be the only true Israel and thought those who submitted to the Romans were apostates. This point I shall argue in another paper.

⁹³ War II.425ff.

⁹⁴ War II.408, cp. 433f.

⁹⁵ War II.433-48.

⁹⁶ War II.449.

⁹⁷ War VI.409-9; 437-50.

⁹⁸ War II.564.

⁹⁹ War II.651.