^{page 564 note 1} Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967). For example, chapter three is entitled ‘Israel's Cause Against Rome, A.D. 6–73’.Google ScholarSee also ‘The Zealots: the Jewish resistance against Rome, A.D. 6–73’, History Today IX (1965), 632–41.Google Scholar

^{page 564 note 2} The recent contributions on the dating of the Zealots establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Zealot faction did not appear until the period of the Jewish war. See Zeitlin, S., ‘Zealots and Sicarii’, J.B.L. LXXXII (1962), 395–8;Google ScholarBaumbach, G., ‘Zeloaten und Sikarier’, Theol. Lit. Zeit. X (1965), 727–40;Google ScholarSmith, M., ‘Zealots and Sicarii, their origins andrelation’, H.T.R. LXIV (1971), 1–19;Google ScholarBorg, M., ‘The currency of the term “Zealot”’, J.T.S. XXII (1971), 504–12.Google Scholar

^{page 564 note 3} For a relatively comprehensive bibliography seeBrandon, S. G. F., ‘Jesus and the Zealots: aftermath’, B.J.R.L. LIV (1971), 47–66.Google ScholarSee in addition the review article by Sacci, P. in Revue de Qumran III (1968), 444–55Google Scholarand also Griffiths, J.Gwyn, ‘Zealot and para-Zealot’, N.T.S. XIX (1973), 483–6.Google Scholar

^{page 564 note 4} Simon and James, Josephus, A.J. XX. 102.

^{page 564 note 5} Josephus, B.J. II. 253–7. In B.J. VII. 254 Josephus states that Sicarii were in existence in A.D. 6 at the time of Judas' revolt over the assessment for annexation whereas B.J. II. 253–7 affirms that they arose in c. A.D.54. The probability is that terrorism had not been significantly employed since A.D. 6 and that the movement was specifically called the Sicarii (by its enemies?) only in the time of Felix.

^{page 564 note 6} Josephus refers to prophets in the days of Fadus (A.D. 44–8) (A.J. XX. 97); Felix (A.D. 52–60) (A.J. XX. 167–8: B.J. II. 259, 262; A.J. XX. 171–cf.Acts xxi. 38); Festus (A.D. 60–2) (A.J. XX. 188); Albinus, Florus (A.D. 62–6) (B.J. VI. 301–9); The Emergency Government (A.D. 66–70) (B.J. VI. 285–90).

^{page 564 note 7} Josephus describes consecutively the rise of the Sicarii and the prophets (B.J. II. 254–60); Acts xxi. 38refers to the Egyptian prophet as leading 4,000 Sicarii.

^{page 564 note 8} According to Zeitlin, S., ‘Zealots and Sicarii’, J.B.L. LXXXII (1962), 395–8 the Sicarii did not participate in the conflict in the period between the death of Menahem (A.D. 66) and the siege of Masada (A.D. 73).Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 1} Juvenal, Satires VI. 156–60; Josephus,A.J. XX. 145, 211–12. See Meshorer, Y., ‘A new type of coins of Agrippa II’, I.E.J. (1970), pp. 20–1.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 2} For evidence that Maccabean exploits were remembered see Farmer, W. R., Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (N.Y. 1956), pp. 132–58, pp. 203–9.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 3} A.J. XIX. 364, XX. 10–14; B.J. II. 245, cf. A.J. XX. 134–6.

^{page 565 note 4} Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 199–333; A.J. XVIII. 261–301; B.J. II. 185–201.

^{page 565 note 5} A.J. XIX. 360–6. Was there an ⋯ποτ⋯μησις to mark the annexation of Galilee to Rome in A.D. 44?

^{page 565 note 6} See Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus (London, 1969), pp. 141–3.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 7} A.J. XX. 162.

^{page 565 note 8} Tacitus, Annals, XII. 54; Histories, V. 9.

^{page 565 note 9} B.J. II. 254–7.

^{page 565 note 10} A.J. XX. 167–8; B.J. II. 259, 262; A.J. XX. 171; Acts xxi. 38.

^{page 565 note 11} B.J. II. 266–70; A.J. XX. 173–9.

^{page 565 note 12} A.J. XX. 189–96; Vita 13–16; B.J. II. 252; A.J. XX. 159.

^{page 565 note 13} A.J. XX. 182–4.

^{page 565 note 14} ‘In the last analysis… Nero's personal responsibility seems to have ended with choice of governors for theprovinces in which there were military forces and the appropriate measuresto back them up if trouble occurred.’ Warmington, B. H., Nero: Reality and Legend (London, 1969), p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 15} Witnessed by the necessity to provide an escort ofnearly 500 to bring Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea c. A.D. 59 (Acts xxiii. 23).

^{page 565 note 16} B. H. Warmington, op. cit. p. 58.

^{page 565 note 17} Acts xxiv. 26; A.J. XX. 205; B.J. II. 274, 288; B. H. Warmington, op. cit. pp. 59–62 observes that whilst there were numerous prosecutions of governors A.D. 59–61, there is no record of prosecutions thereafter in Nero's principate.

^{page 565 note 18} On the activities of High Priests and ex-High Priests in this period see Smallwood, E. M., ‘High Priests and politics in Roman Palestine’, J.T.S. XIII (1962), 22–31.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 19} A.J. XX. 205–6.

^{page 566 note 1} A.J. XX. 207.

^{page 566 note 2} A.J. XX. 181.

^{page 566 note 3} B.J. II. 410, 418.

^{page 566 note 4} We may conclude that the Zealot faction contained significant numbers of priests. The leaders were priests (B.J. IV. 225) and the faction captured the temple and elected their own high priest (B.J. IV. 147–8).

^{page 566 note 5} A.J. XX. 15, 104.

^{page 566 note 6} A.J. XX. 179.

^{page 566 note 7} A.J. XX. 179, 196, 197, 203, 213, 223.

^{page 566 note 8} A.J. XX. 216–18, 189–96.

^{page 566 note 9} B.J. II. 301, 318–23, 338. Those who assessed and supervised the collection of the tribute were from this class (B.J. II. 405, 7).

^{page 566 note 10} B.J. II. 409–10.

^{page 566 note 11} B.J. II. 408.

^{page 566 note 12} B.J. II. 427.

^{page 566 note 13} B.J. II. 426–9.

^{page 566 note 14} B.J. II. 388–9.

^{page 566 note 15} A.J. XVII. 355.

^{page 567 note 1} A.J. XVIII. 1–5; B.J. VII. 253.

^{page 567 note 2} Acts V. 37.

^{page 567 note 3} B.J. II. 117–18; A.J. XVIII. 4.

^{page 567 note 4} Tacitus, Annals, II. 42.

^{page 567 note 5} Tacitus, Histories, V. 9.

^{page 567 note 6} Mark xii. 13–17, etc.

^{page 567 note 7} Florus' appropriation of 17 talents from the Corbonas (B.J. II. 293), apparently for arrears of tribute from the toparchy of Jerusalem (B.J. II. 403, 405) was the spark that ignited the flames of war in Jerusalem A.D. 66.

^{page 567 note 8} A.J. XVIII. 33.

^{page 567 note 9} A.J. XVIII. 173–7.

^{page 567 note 10} A.J. XVIII. 95.

^{page 567 note 11} A.J. XVIII. 123.

^{page 567 note 12} Philo, In Flaccum, I. I; Legatio ad Gaium, 159–60. See Smallwood, E. M., ‘Some notes on the Jews under Tiberius’, Latomus XV (1956), 325.Google Scholar

^{page 567 note 13} Legatio ad Gaium, 161.

^{page 567 note 14} Tacitus, Annals, III. 72, IV. 2, 72; Suetonius, Tiberius, 48, 65. Dio Cassius, lviii. 2, 4, 5, 7.

^{page 567 note 15} A.J. XVIII. 55; B.J. II. 175.

^{page 567 note 16} See Doyle, A. D., ‘Pilate's career and the date of the crucifixion’, J.T.S. XLII (1941), 190–3.Google ScholarMaier, P. L., ‘Sejanus, Pilate and the date of thecrucifixion’, Church History XXXVII (1968), 3–13;CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘The episode of the golden Roman shields at Jerusalem’, H.T.R. LXII (1969), 109–21.Google Scholar

^{page 568 note 1} A.J. XVIII. 55 ff.; B.J. II. 169 ff.

^{page 568 note 2} Legatio ad Gaium, 299–305.

^{page 568 note 3} B.J. II. 175–7; A.J. XVIII. 60–2.

^{page 568 note 4} Luke xiii. I.

^{page 568 note 5} Mark XV. 6–7, 27.

^{page 568 note 6} John xix. 12.

^{page 568 note 7} Thus Maier, P. L., ‘The episode of the golden Roman shields at Jerusalem’, H.T.R. LXII (1969), 101–21;Google ScholarHoehner, H., ‘Why did Pilate hand Jesus over to Antipas’, The Trial of Jesus (Ed. Bammel, E.) (London, 1971), pp. 84–91.Google Scholar

^{page 568 note 8} John vi. 14–15. For a discussion of the significance of the incident as recorded in Mark vi. 30 ff. see Montefiore, H. W., ‘Revolt in the Desert’, N.T.S. VIII (1962), 135–41.Google Scholar

^{page 568 note 9} Mark xi. 1–10; Matthew xxi. 1–9; Luke xix. 29–38; John xii. 12–15. See Farmer, W. R., ‘The palm branches in John 12: 13’, J.T.S. III (1952), 62–5.Google Scholar

^{page 568 note 10} Acts V. 37.

^{page 568 note 11} A.J. XVIII. 89.

^{page 568 note 12} Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967), pp. 80–3.Google Scholar

^{page 568 note 13} A.J. XVIII. 90.

^{page 568 note 14} Ibid.

^{page 568 note 15} A.J. XVIII. 121.

^{page 568 note 16} Op. cit. pp. 82–3.

^{page 568 note 17} A.J. XVIII. 123.

^{page 568 note 18} A.J. XVIII. 124.

^{page 568 note 19} A.J. XVIII. 42.

^{page 569 note 1} The ancient sources, Philo (Legatio ad Gaium, 199–333) and Josephus (A.J. XVIII. 261–301; B.J. II. 185–201) display chronological conflict. See Smallwood, E. M., ‘The Chronology of Gaius’ attempt to desecrate the Temple’, Latomus XVI (1957), 3–17.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 2} Op. cit. p. 82.

^{page 569 note 3} Legatio ad Gaium, 233–42; A.J. XVIII. 271.

^{page 569 note 4} A.J. XVIII. 274–5.

^{page 569 note 5} Though Eleazar, son of Deinaeus, the brigand chief (⋯ρχιλῃστ⋯ς) would have been active at this time (B.J. II. 253, cf. II. 235; A.J. XX. 121, 161). However, Eleazar may have been a cut-throat rather than a political insurrectionist.

^{page 569 note 6} Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the time of Jesus (London, E.T., 1969), pp. 179–80.Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 1} A.J. XVIII. 26. The Boethus dynasty exercised continuous tenure of the pontificate in the days of Herod from c. 22 B.C. (A.J. XV. 320–2) until the deposition of Joazar's brother Eleazar some time in Archelaus's reign (A.J. XVIII. 339).

^{page 570 note 2} The measure of Joazar's unpopularity may be seen in the fact that he provoked popular uprisings in both 4 B.C. (A.J. XVII. 207) and A.D. 6 (A.J. XVIII. 3).

^{page 570 note 3} John xi. 48.

^{page 570 note 4} John xix. 12–15, 21, cf. Acts xvii. 7 and Judge, E. A., ‘The decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica’, Reformed Theological Review I (1971), 1–8.Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 5} John xix. 12.

^{page 570 note 6} John xix. 13.

^{page 570 note 7} Op. cit. p. 82.

^{page 570 note 8} A.J. XVIII. 121.

^{page 570 note 9} Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 229.

^{page 570 note 10} This is not to ascribe moral virtue to the Ananus dynasty (Pesahim 57 a Tosefta Menahot, XIII. 18).

^{page 571 note 1} A.J. XVIII. 9.

^{page 571 note 2} A.J. XVIII. 7–9.

^{page 571 note 3} Hoehner, H., Herod Antipas (Cambridge, 1972), p. 79 points out that whilst ‘taxation was a burden… yet there was never a rebellion on this account or any record of outward resentment towards Antipas’.Google Scholar

^{page 571 note 4} It is not clear where Tacitus obtained his information for Histories, V. 9–10. For generalized discussion see Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1963), p. 311 n. 3. Tacitus' bias against ‘historians who wrote during the Flavian period’ (Histories, II. 101) makes it unlikely that he would have employed the pro-Flavian Josephus.Google ScholarIndeed, with respect to the early years of Vespasian, Townend, G. B., ‘Cluvius Rufus in the “Histories” of Tacitus’, A.J.P. LXXXV (1964), 372–7 establishes that Tacitus did not depend upon Josephus.Google Scholar

^{page 571 note 5} That Tacitus refers to Simon alone as a pretender to the throne whereas Josephus describes the activities of three pretenders, Simon being the least significant, strengthens the view that Tacitus did not depend upon Josephus for his information in Histories, V. 9–10.