latrones - Get a Free Blog

LEISTAI IN JUDAEA
together, in both cases because of the burdensome weight of double taxation;
various people hostile to Rome seeking to protest over the lost independence
of their country; religious groups seeking to protest against other
religious groups as a result of differing opinions in matters concerning
the purity of Jewish teaching. Yet these groups, however varied were the
aims which differentiated them from each other and from their Jewish and
Roman opponents, had one thing in common, that they were highly politicised
and ready for revolutionary change. This too does not square with
social bandits, who give vent to their undirected protest in simple, prepolitical
forms. 24
Doubts concerning social banditry can be confirmed by consideration of
some specific cases. From around 47 bc the border region between Syria
and Galilee was terrorised by the archileistes Hezekiah and his band. He was
captured by Herod I at the very start of his reign, and executed together
with his comrades. 25 Josephus tells us little about the exact circumstances,
but the context – Herod’s struggle to establish his claim to the throne in the
face of considerable opposition – suggests not a peasant rebel but a pretender
with definite political aims: one might guess, a supporter of the Hasmonaean
dynasty which Herod had displaced. 26 If Hezekiah had really been no more
than a common bandit defeated by Herod, this would surely not have attracted
the attention of the Roman governor of Syria. 27 Here, ‘king’ and
‘bandit’ stand as terms for two parties, one of whom controls the reins of
power, which makes him a monarch, and one of whom disputes his position,
which makes him a robber. A reversal of fortune might lead to a straightforward
exchange of roles: Herod himself experienced times when he went
from being a ‘king’ to being a ‘bandit’. 28
A generation later, Judas, son of Hezekiah, caused a stir as a ‘bandit’. He
appeared after the death of Herod (so, therefore, around 4 bc) in Sepphoris
in Galilee as the leader of a revolt against the rule of Herod Antipas. 29 With
his ‘band’ he attacked the city armoury, seized weapons and money and
embarked on plundering expeditions. Judas may have been personally motivated
in seeking vengeance for the execution of his father by Herod I, but
Josephus says nothing about this. On the contrary, he claims that Judas
himself wanted to be ‘king’. This may be an exaggeration but it allows us
to see that Judas had political aims in rebelling and that, like his father,
as an enemy of the house of Antipater, he saw the uncertainty caused by the
change of ruler as a chance to create some sort of position for himself or to
encourage an opposition movement of which he approved.
The revolt of Simon, a slave of the dead king Herod, against Herod
Antipas should be set in the same context. 30 This ‘bandit’ is also of interest
because of his servile origin, and will therefore be dealt with in more detail
in Chapter 7 in looking at ‘slaves as avengers’. In anticipation of this, it is
sufficient here to note only that Simon pursued political goals with the same
resolve as that discerned in the cases of Hezekiah and Judas. For, as Josephus
95