John2 wrote:Maryhelena,
Well, technically we could say there was no "Zealot activity" until the 60's CE, because that's when Josephus first mentions "the Zealots":
"Ananus's concern was ... to persuade the seditious to consult their own interest, and to restrain the madness of those that had the name of zealots; but their violence was too hard for him" (War 2.22.1).
"Ananus the son of Ananus when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots; for that was the name they went by" (War 4.3.9).
So in that sense I agree with you that there was no "Zealot" activity during the time of Pilate, because there weren't any "Zealots" before the 60's. But we can infer that there were zealots in a more general sense before this because Josephus ties all the seditions of the first century to the teaching of Judas (and says that "the younger sort ... were zealous for it").
So I'm talking about this climate of "sedition" that started with Judas in 6 CE and ended with the 66-70 CE war. And what happened during Pilate's time is called a sedition, whether it was armed or not. There were Jews who were willing to have their heads chopped off to stop him from erecting images of Tiberius in Jerusalem:
A climate of ''sedition''. ? The whole period of Hasmonean history, from as early as Judas Maccabeus, was one in which armed sedition raised in head at various times. Using any date, re Josephus, for armed rebellion, is not an argument for armed rebellion during the time of Pilate. The difference between zealot with a small 'z' and Zealot with a capital 'Z' is that one group gives vent to their seditious inclinations while the other group keeps those inclinations in check. The issue is not whether there were zealots (with a small 'z') in the time of Pilate. Of course there were. The Jews were living under occupation. Thoughts of freedom would never be far away for such people. As the saying goes - time for everything under the sun. Thus, in regard to armed rebellion - one picks ones moment...and there was no such moment during the time of Pilate.
"But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea." (Ant. 18.3.1).
Being willing to die for ones values does not require armed rebellion. Passive resistance is a well known method of protest. (Gandhi)
I characterize this behavior as zealous and see it in the same light as those were inspired by Judas and believed that "God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord" (Ant. 18.1.6).
What's the difference between these attitudes?
Passive resistance vs armed rebellion.
But Josephus actually calls the next incident a sedition, when thousands of Jews "made a clamor against [Pilate] ... Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition" (Ant. 18.3.2).
It doesn't matter if it was unarmed. Josephus calls it a sedition and he ties all the seditions in first century CE to the uprising of Judas.
I don't know the Greek word involved here that is translated as 'sedition'. However, the quote says clearly that
'the people were unarmed'. An unarmed protest hardly seems to classify as 'sedition', as rebellion.
And Philo says this kind of hot headed attitude existed when Caligula wanted to erect a statue of himself in the temple c. 40 CE, to such an extent that it gave pause to a Roman general:
"For you [Caligula] cannot possibly have been ignorant of what was likely to result from your attempt to introduce these innovations respecting our temple; but having previously learnt with perfect accuracy what was likely to happen as well as if it had already taken place, and knowing the future as thoroughly as if it were actually present, you commanded your general to bring up an army in order that the statue when erected might be consecrated by the first sacrifice offered to it ... Accordingly Petronius, when he had read what he was commanded to do ... was in great perplexity, not being able to resist the orders sent to him out of fear, for he heard that the emperor's wrath was implacable not only against those who did not do what they were commanded to do ... and on the other hand, he did not see how it was easy to perform them, for he knew that the Jews would willingly, if it were possible, endure ten thousand deaths instead of one, rather than submit to see any forbidden thing perpetrated with respect to their religion; for all men are eager to preserve their own customs and laws, and the Jewish nation above all others ... and the greatest proof of this is that Petronius, having regard to these considerations, was very reluctant to attempt what he was commanded to do" (Embassy to Gaius ch. 31).
Tacitus also describes this event, after the Tiberius comment you mentioned, and says it was armed:
"Under Tiberius all was quiet. Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they chose rather to resort to arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising. The princes now being dead or reduced to insignificance, Claudius made Judea a province" (Histories 5.9).
This too happened during the time you suggest there was no "Zealot" activity (6 CE to 48 CE). So Josephus, Philo and Tacitus are evidence that zealot-type attitudes and activities existed before 48 CE, which the former says began with the uprising of Judas in 6 CE and ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
Now you have removed your argument to post Pilate.....The title of the OP - a post Peter moved from it's original thread - is 'Zealot activity under Pilate'. You have not provided any evidence that during the time of Pilate Zealot activity took place.
The dating referenced above, 6 CE to 48 CE, is dating from Lena Einhorn's article. The OP is dealing specifically with the time of Pilate - generally given as 26 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. That the gospel story has an underlay of linkage to Zealot type activity does not translate into such activity during the time of Pilate. That Zealot linkage could, as Lena Einhorn suggests, require a time-shift away from the time of Pilate for the gospel story. I would think it far more likely that the gospel Zealot linkage is something that has been backdated to the time of Pilate - and once one goes that route, then earlier, pre Pilate, Zealot activity could also be part of that gospel Zealot linkage.
The gospel story has a Zealot linkage - post Pilate and pre Pilate. What that suggests is that the gospel story contains linkage to Zealot activity that covers a wide historical time frame. Zealot activity that arose and then subsided, arose and then subsided. One of the periods in which Zealot activity subsided was the time of Pilate.
---------------------
footnote:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... 85-zealots
ZEALOTS (Hebrew, Ḳanna'im):
Zealous defenders of the Law and of the national life of the Jewish people; name of a party opposing with relentless rigor any attempt to bring Judea under the dominion of idolatrous Rome, and especially of the aggressive and fanatical war party from the time of Herod until the fall of Jerusalem and Masada. The members of this party bore also the name Sicarii, from their custom of going about with daggers ("sicæ") hidden beneath their cloaks, with which they would stab any one found committing a sacrilegious act or anything provoking anti-Jewish feeling.
Origin and Meaning of the Name.
Following Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6), most writers consider that the Zealots were a so-called fourth party founded by Judas the Galilean (see Grätz, "Gesch." iii. 252, 259; Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., i. 3, 486). This view is contradicted, however, by the fact that Hezekiah, the father of Judas the Galilean, had an organized band of so-called "robbers" which made war against the Idumean Herod ("B. J." i. 10, § 5; "Ant." xiv. 9, § 2), and also by the fact that the system of organized assassination practised by the Zealots was in existence during the reign of Herod, if not long before (see below). The name "Ḳanna'im" (; not "Kenaim" as given in Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." 1886, s.v. "Zẹloten") occurs twice in the Talmud: in Sanh. ix. 11 and in Ab. R. N. vi. (where the other version has ["Sicarii"]; see Schechter's edition, pp. 31 and 32). The former passage contains a statute, evidently of the Maccabean time, declaring that "Whosoever steals the libation cup [Num. iv. 7 or curses one with the aid of the Holy Name [Lev. xxiv. 16, Sifra] or has sexual intercourse with a Syrian [heathen] woman shall be felled by the Ḳanna'im or Zealots." This is explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 82a, b; Yer. Sanh. ix. 27b) to mean that, while the acts mentioned are not causes for criminal procedure, they fall into the same category as did the crime of Zimri the son of Salu, whom Phinehas, because "he was zealous for his God," slew flagrante delicto (Num. xxv. 11-14). Phinehas is set up as a pattern, being called "Ḳanna'i ben Ḳanna'i" (a Zealot, the son of a Zealot), inasmuch as he followed the example of Levi, the son of Jacob, who avenged the crime perpetrated upon Dinah by killing the men of Shechem (Sifre, Num. 131; Sanh. 82b; comp. Book of Jubilees, xxx. 18, 23, where Levi is said to have been chosen for the priesthood because he was zealous in executing vengeance upon the enemies of Israel, and Judith ix. 2-4, where Simeon as ancestor of Judith is praised for his zealous act).
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
