Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

DCHindley wrote:

iskander wrote:257 The Sicarii and the other party.
A name for the other party ? "Sons of Liberty".

...

Not sure where you are getting the "sons of" part,

Is there a connection between the rebels of 68 and the rebels of 6 AD ?
What we are told is that in the year 6 the rebellion was protesting the introduction of new taxation by a the ruling power. I take it to mean that the rebellion of 6 and 68 had the same general updated causes and that the USA revolutionary organization, the Sons of Liberty, would be a reasonable model for the period of interest.
The American model
See attached file

The War for American Independence: From 1760 to the Surrender at Yorktown in 1781 Paperback – 30 May 2002
Samuel B. Griffith II
• Paperback: 776 pages
• Publisher: University of Illinois Press; 1st Illinois Ed edition (30 May 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0252070607
• ISBN-13: 978-0252070600
We could use the ubiquitous proto- , as in proto-Zealots, instead of the American model.

DCHindley wrote:Not sure where you are getting the "sons of" part, unless you are referring to some sort of modern day militia movement such as we have here and there in the USA, which could easily have a name like that, seeing it was used by one party involved with the American revolution of 1776.

Perhaps a name such as the People's Front of Judea would be more likely (not the Judean People's Front):

DCHindley wrote:I don't think we can equate Sicarii with the Zealots, though.

You can and you cannot. I view this as an unofficial branch of the same tree.

Every bit of our historical text here, is done through very late hebrew text, being just about worthless. Or through a Hellenistic lens.

It would be the followers of Judas in 6 CE (and again in 66-74 CE as the Sicarii) who would be the freedom fighters.

The problem in understanding all of this, is in understand how oppressed Aramaic Israelites hated their oppression. This was a country wide cultural trait divided by wealth.

It all comes back to the socioeconomic divide which most all Aramaic Israelites were on the losing side of the stick. Hellenist being on the winning side here.

Since this is not settles or agreed upon in detail, it leaves the study of what and how to define what a Zealot is, in a vague state of academic understanding.

I do think it is safe to say, Aramaic Galileans peasants were viewed by Hellenist as trouble makers. Zealot is a Hellenistic description of these people. With freedom from the Roman army, and only being under Herods thumb. These peasants had a little more freedom to be trouble makers and rebel more against their Hellenistic oppressors.

"Aramaic Israelites"? Aram = Syria. I don't think there were any reports of Syrians living in Palestine having any issues with the Roman government. Nor for that matter "Aramaic Galileans peasants." John you consistently ignore the widespread use of Hebrew even into the Common Era. I don't think Aramaic THE LANGUAGE was a dividing line for understanding the rebellion. I bet speaking Hebrew was more useful for determining rebel sympathies.

From Wikipedia:

Recent scholarship recognizes that reports of Jews speaking in Aramaic indicates a multilingual society, not necessarily the primary language spoken. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew co-existed within Israel as a spoken language.[27] Most scholars now date the demise of Hebrew as a spoken language to the end of the Roman Period, or about 200 CE.[28] It continued on as a literary language down through the Byzantine Period from the 4th century CE.

This is hardly controversial. If you spend any time to think of matters (instead of regurgitating entry level courses you might have taken at a community college) Hebrew rather than Aramaic was undoubtedly the more important language to understand the Jewish rebels. There of course were Aramaic speaking Jews participating in the rebellion but there were likely also Aramaic speaking Jews who did not participate in the revolt. Since the rebellion was fueled by religious ideas about the separateness of the Jewish people, I will again submit that ability to speak and read Hebrew was likely more indicative of rebel sympathies. Josephus was one of the top rebel leaders and he certainly could speak Hebrew. His priestly status make it impossible to deny religion likely motivating the revolt. The fact that his 'histories' shift blame for the revolt away from the religious authorities and religion as a primary motivating factor and onto proselytes from non-Jewish peoples is hardly a convincing argument for understanding the causality of the war. Like Germans from WWII saying they didn't notice Jews were suddenly 'missing' from their cities, schools and work places.

I was only going off of Whiston's translation of Josephus, regardless of whatever reservations we might have about Josephus as a historian. He is, basically, except for a few offhand remarks in Roman writers, our only extended source for the period in question.

Perhaps Ben will weigh in, as he would be better able to tell if all those "thems" and "theys" can be connected as I had suggested. There could well be other, and better, ways to interpret his comments.

I'd describe Josephus as here (War, book 7) giving his opinion about what went wrong with the way the people reacted to Eleazar, the Captain of the Temple, refusing to accept for sacrifice gifts from foreigners, something that everyone knew would invite Roman military intervention. One of the key rejected sacrifices was the one made for the health and safety of the Emperor, as a token of submission to the Roman empire.

In 6 CE with Judas, the tax issue was paramount, as it was sign of submission to the Roman empire, if only as a province under a caretaker government and a semi-autonomous temple apparatus, all administratively managed by a single Roman governor. In 66 CE, the Captain of the Temple unilaterally decided to reject any foreign contributions, which was tantamount to declaring independence. This was an ethnic "purity" issue.

Perhaps, he was suggesting, it could have ended with a negotiated resolution had all, or at least the aristocratic faction of the Judean people headed by the High Priestly families, not become oppressive and unnecessarily violent in their exertion of control of the people. Any excess, it seems, was excusable when it came to imposing the peculiar POVs of the powerful men upon the people, whether they wanted it or not.

DCH

DCHindley wrote:Although this subject seems to have temporarily petered out, I spent a little time annotating William Whiston's English translation of Josephus' War Book 7, sections 253-274, where Josephus sums up the common themes of the major players in the War of 66 CE. My intent was to see whether "Zealots" could have been active in the time of the revolt of Judas occasioned by the taxation being imposed by the Emperor's procurator Cyrenius, around 6 CE.

....

Perhaps Ben will weigh in, as he would be better able to tell if all those "thems" and "theys" can be connected as I had suggested. There could well be other, and better, ways to interpret his comments.

Well, here is the Greek side by side with the English. I have left your boldfacing in the main text, removed it from your bracketed comments, and boldfaced the corresponding Greek terms. I have also boldfaced a few Greek pronouns and their corresponding translations in the English. Finally, I have struck through a couple of English phrases which I do not see in the Greek (this is not exhaustive: I checked only where there was a collection of boldfaced words):

De Bello Iudaico 7.8.1 §252 [/b]	Wars of the Jews 7.8.1 §252 [/b]
[252] Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Ἰουδαίας Βάσσου τελευτήσαντος Φλαύιος Σίλβας διαδέχεται τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἄλλην ὁρῶν ἅπασαν τῷ πολέμῳ κεχειρωμένην, ἓν δὲ μόνον ἔτι φρούριον ἀφεστηκός, ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ τοῦτο πᾶσαν τὴν ἐν τοῖς τόποις δύναμιν συναγαγών: καλεῖται δὲ τὸ φρούριον Μασάδα. [253] προειστήκει δὲ τῶν κατειληφότων αὐτὸ σικαρίων δυνατὸς ἀνὴρ Ἐλεάζαρος, ἀπόγονος Ἰούδα τοῦ πείσαντος Ἰουδαίους οὐκ ὀλίγους, ὡς πρότερον δεδηλώκαμεν, μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπογραφάς, ὅτε Κυρίνιος τιμητὴς εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἐπέμφθη. [254] τότε γὰρ οἱ σικάριοι συνέστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑπακούειν Ῥωμαίων θέλοντας καὶ πάντα τρόπον ὡς πολεμίοις προσεφέροντο, τὰς μὲν κτήσεις ἁρπάζοντες καὶ περιελαύνοντες, ταῖς δ᾽ οἰκήκεσιν αὐτῶν πῦρ ἐνιέντες: [255] οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀλλοφύλων αὐτοὺς ἔφασκον διαφέρειν οὕτως ἀγεννῶς τὴν περιμάχητον Ἰουδαίοις ἐλευθερίαν προεμένους καὶ δουλείαν αἱρεῖσθαι τὴν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις ἀνωμολογηκότας.	252 When Bassus was dead in Judea, Flavius Silva succeeded him as procurator there; who, when he saw that all the rest of the country was subdued in this war, and that there was but one only strong hold that was still in rebellion, he got all his army together that lay in different places, and made an expedition against it. This fortress was called Masada. 253 It was one Eleazar, a powerful man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded a large number of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; 254 for then it was that the Sicarii got together against those who were willing to submit to the Romans, and treated them in all respects as if they had been their enemies, both by plundering them of what they had, by driving away their cattle, and by setting fire to their houses: 255 for they [the followers of Judas] said that they [those willing to submit to the taxation] differed not at all from foreigners, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost, and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans before such a contention.
[256] ἦν δ᾽ ἄρα τοῦτο πρόφασις εἰς παρακάλυμμα τῆς ὠμότητος καὶ τῆς πλεονεξίας ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν λεγόμενον: σαφὲς δὲ διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐποίησαν. [257] οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἐκοινώνησαν καὶ τοῦ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους συνήραντο πολέμου * καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων δὲ τολμήματα χείρω πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐγένετο, [258] κἀπὶ τῷ ψεύδεσθαι πάλιν τὴν πρόφασιν ἐξελεγχόμενοι μᾶλλον ἐκάκουν τοὺς τὴν πονηρίαν αὐτῶν διὰ τῆς δικαιολογίας ὀνειδίζοντας. [259] ἐγένετο γάρ πως ὁ χρόνος ἐκεῖνος παντοδαπῆς ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις πονηρίας πολύφορος, ὡς μηδὲν κακίας ἔργον ἄπρακτον καταλιπεῖν, μηδ᾽ εἴ τι ἐπίνοια διαπλάττειν ἐθελήσειεν, ἔχειν ἄν τι καινότερον ἐξευρεῖν. [260] οὕτως ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ κοινῇ πάντες ἐνόσησαν, καὶ προσυπερβάλλειν ἀλλήλους ἔν τε ταῖς πρὸς θεὸν ἀσεβείαις καὶ ταῖς εἰς τοὺς πλησίον ἀδικίαις ἐφιλονείκησαν, οἱ μὲν δυνατοὶ τὰ πλήθη κακοῦντες, οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ τοὺς δυνατοὺς ἀπολλύναι σπεύδοντες: [261] ἦν γὰρ ἐκείνοις μὲν ἐπιθυμία τοῦ τυραννεῖν, τοῖς δὲ τοῦ βιάζεσθαι καὶ τὰ τῶν εὐπόρων διαρπάζειν. [262] πρῶτον οὖν οἱ σικάριοι τῆς παρανομίας καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς συγγενεῖς ἤρξαντο ὠμότητος, μήτε λόγον ἄρρητον εἰς ὕβριν μήτ᾽ ἔργον ἀπείρατον εἰς ὄλεθρον τῶν ἐπιβουλευθέντων παραλιπόντες.	256 Now this was in reality no better than a pretence and a cloak for the barbarity which was made use of by them, and to colour over their own avarice, which they afterward made evident by their own actions; 257 for those [same parties or groups of people] that were partners with them [the Sicarii] in their rebellion [to the taxation], joined also with them [i.e., the Sicarii] in the war against the Romans, and went further lengths with them in their impudent undertakings against them [i.e., the Romans]; 258 and when they [the parties or groups of people mentioned before] were again convicted of falsehood in this pretext, they still more abused those who justly reproached them for their wickedness; 259 and indeed that [war against the Romans] was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices, insomuch that no kind of evil deeds were then left undone; nor could anyone so much as devise any bad thing that was new, 260 so deeply were they all infected, and strove with one another in their single capacity, and in their communities, who should run the greatest lengths in impiety toward God, and in unjust actions toward their neighbours; the men of power oppressing the multitude, and the multitude earnestly labouring to kill the men of power. 261 The one part [i.e., the men of power] were desirous of tyrannizing over others; and the rest of offering violence to others [indiscriminately], and of plundering such as were richer than themselves. 262 They were the Sicarii who first began these transgressions [in the time of Cyrenius], and first became barbarous toward those allied to them, and left no words of reproach unsaid, and no works of perdition untried, in order to kill those whom their contrivances affected.
[263] ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτους Ἰωάννης ἀπέδειξεν αὐτοῦ μετριωτέρους: οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀνῄρει πάντας ὅσοι τὰ δίκαια καὶ συμφέροντα συνεβούλευον, καθάπερ ἐχθίστοις μάλιστα δὴ τῶν πολιτῶν τοῖς τοιούτοις προσφερόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ κοινῇ τὴν πατρίδα μυρίων ἐνέπλησε κακῶν, οἷα πράξειν ἔμελλεν ἄνθρωπος ἤδη καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀσεβεῖν τετολμηκώς: [264] τράπεζάν τε γὰρ ἄθεσμον παρετίθετο καὶ τὴν νενομισμένην καὶ πάτριον ἐξεδιῄτησεν ἁγνείαν, ἵν᾽ ᾖ μηκέτι θαυμαστόν, εἰ τὴν πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἡμερότητα καὶ κοινωνίαν οὐκ ἐτήρησεν ὁ τῆς πρὸς θεὸν εὐσεβείας οὕτω καταμανείς.	263 Yet did John [of Gischala] demonstrate by his actions, that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the citizens; nay, he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness, such as a man who was already hardened sufficiently in his impiety toward God, would naturally do; 264 for the food was unlawful that was set upon his table, and he rejected those purifications that the law of his country had ordained; so that it was no longer a wonder if he, who was so mad in his impiety toward God, did not observe any rules of gentleness and common affection toward men.
[265] πάλιν τοίνυν ὁ Γιώρα Σίμων τί κακὸν οὐκ ἔδρασεν; ἢ ποίας ὕβρεως ἐλευθέρων ἀπέσχοντο σωμάτων οἳ τοῦτον ἀνέδειξαν τύραννον; [266] ποία δὲ αὐτοὺς φιλία, ποία δὲ συγγένεια πρὸς τοὺς ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστης ἡμέρας φόνους οὐχὶ θρασυτέρους ἐποίησε; τὸ μὲν γὰρ τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους κακῶς ποιεῖν ἀγεννοῦς ἔργον πονηρίας [εἶναι] ὑπελάμβανον, λαμπρὰν δὲ φέρειν ἐπίδειξιν ἡγοῦντο τὴν ἐν τοῖς οἰκειοτάτοις ὠμότητα.	265 Again, therefore, what mischief was there which Simon the son of Gioras did not do? Or what kind of abuses did he abstain from as to those very freemen who had set him up for a tyrant? 266 What [manner of] friendship or kindred [by nationality] were there that did not make him more bold in his daily murders? For they looked upon the doing of mischief to strangers only, as a work beneath their courage, but thought their barbarity toward their nearest relatives would be a glorious demonstration thereof.
[267] παρημιλλήσατο δὲ καὶ τὴν τούτων ἀπόνοιαν ἡ τῶν Ἰδουμαίων μανία: ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ οἱ μιαρώτατοι τοὺς ἀρχιερέας κατασφάξαντες, ὅπως μηδὲ μέρος τι τῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείας διαφυλάττηται, πᾶν ὅσον ἦν λείψανον ἔτι πολιτικοῦ σχήματος ἐξέκοψαν, [268] καὶ τὴν τελεωτάτην εἰσήγαγον διὰ πάντων ἀνομίαν, ἐν ᾗ τὸ τῶν ζηλωτῶν κληθέντων γένος ἤκμασεν, οἳ τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς ἔργοις ἐπηλήθευσαν: [269] πᾶν γὰρ κακίας ἔργον ἐξεμιμήσαντο, μηδ᾽ εἴ τι πρότερον προϋπάρχον ἡ μνήμη παραδέδωκεν αὐτοὶ παραλιπόντες ἀζήλωτον. [270] καίτοι τὴν προσηγορίαν αὑτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ ζηλουμένων ἐπέθεσαν, ἢ κατειρωνευόμενοι τῶν ἀδικουμένων διὰ τὴν αὐτῶν θηριώδη φύσιν ἢ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν κακῶν ἀγαθὰ νομίζοντες.	267 The Idumeans also strove with these men who should be guilty of the greatest madness! For they [all], vile wretches as they were, cut the throats of the high priests, that so no part of a religious regard to God might be preserved; they from there proceeded to destroy utterly the least remains of a political government, 268 and introduced the most complete scene of iniquity in all instances that could be practised; under which scene [of iniquity], that sort of people that were called Zealots grew up [in power, although they had already been a faction in the city when the Romans were preparing to overtake Galilee, and had in fact let the Idumeans into the city to overthrow the aristocracy of the Chief Priests], and who indeed corresponded to the name; 269 for they imitated every wicked work; nor, if their memory suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they avoid zealously to pursue the same; 270 and although they gave themselves that name from their zeal for what was good, yet did it agree to them only by way of irony, on account of those they had unjustly treated by their wild and brutish disposition, or as thinking the greatest mischiefs to be the greatest good.
[271] τοιγαροῦν προσῆκον ἕκαστοι τὸ τέλος εὕροντο τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ἀξίαν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς τιμωρίαν βραβεύσαντος: [272] ὅσας γὰρ ἀνθρώπου δύναται φύσις κολάσεις ὑπομεῖναι, πᾶσαι κατέσκηψαν εἰς αὐτοὺς μέχρι καὶ τῆς ἐσχάτης τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς, ἣν ὑπέμειναν ἐν πολυτρόποις αἰκίαις ἀποθανόντες. [273] οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ φαίη τις ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐλάττω παθεῖν ὧν ἔδρασαν: τὸ γὰρ δικαίως ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν οὐ προσῆν. [274] τοὺς δὲ ταῖς ἐκείνων ὠμότησι περιπεσόντας οὐ τοῦ παρόντος ἂν εἴη καιροῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ὀδύρεσθαι: πάλιν οὖν ἐπάνειμι πρὸς τὸ καταλειπόμενον μέρος τῆς διηγήσεως.	271 Accordingly, they all met with such ends as God deservedly brought upon them in way of punishment; 272 for all such miseries have been sent upon them as man's nature is capable of undergoing, till the utmost period of their lives, and till death came upon them in various ways of torment: 273 yet might one say justly that they suffered less than they had done, because it was impossible they could be punished according to their deserving: 274 but to make a lamentation according to the deserts of those who fell under these men's barbarity, this is not a proper place for it; - I therefore now return again to the remaining part of the present narration.

Most if not all of the relevant pronouns are masculine and plural. Of course, most if not all of the various groups (Sicarii, zealots, Idumeans, Romans, Judeans/Jews) are also masculine and plural. So it appears to me that what comes across in the English is a pretty decent reflection of what is in the Greek (with the exception of the phrases which I crossed out). One has to keep one's wits about one with pronominal connections this dense.

My checking has been somewhat cursory, however. I have not gone into it to the lengths that a translator would when preparing for publication.

Ben.

With regard to time shifting, this passage in Chapter VIII —'Of the Times of Christ’s Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem’s Destruction'— of 'An Answer to the Jews' / 'Against the Jews', attributed to Tertulian, reads like an outline to manufacture and time-shift the narrative about Christ -

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem: that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.” 1226 And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, 1227 must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030189.htm

WTF are you talking about? This is Daniel 9:24 - 26.

DCHindley wrote:In 6 CE with Judas, the tax issue was paramount, as it was sign of submission to the Roman empire,

DCH

Any reason to suspect the Aramaic Galileans position would have changed in the first century?