latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
22 Influential, but controversial, is the study of M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, Leiden 1961.
She has, justifiably, been criticised for using the terms Zealots, Sicarii and leistai
indiscriminately, as if these were synonyms, arbitrarily deployed by Josephus, standing
for a unified Jewish resistance movement, the Zealots: cf. G. Baumbach, ‘Zeloten
und Sikarier’, ThLZ 90, 1965, 728–40. M. Smith, ‘Zealots and Sicarii: Their
Origins and Relation’, HThR 64, 1971, 1–19. Horsley, ‘The Sicarii’ (n. 10). Idem,
‘The Zealots. Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt’,
NT 28, 1986, 159–92. These studies now make it possible to discern in the
Zealots and the Sicarii two quite distinct movements, which combined, under
external pressure, only in the last phase of the siege of Jerusalem. The Zealots
appear to have formed only after the outbreak of war: at any rate, Josephus uses the
name for the first time in the context of the year 68 (see below, n. 88). The Sicarii
were much older than the Zealots. Horsley is probably correct in terming them a
sort of urban guerrilla movement, targeting terror attacks in particular on members
of the pro-Roman priestly aristocracy. Though Josephus termed both Zealots and
Sicarii leistai, such a generalisation does not allow us to conclude that all three
terms meant the same thing, given that most of the leistai he mentions were neither
Zealots nor Sicarii.
23 Cf. the similar assessment by Goodman, Ruling Class (n. 3), 60 n. 15.
24 Cf. also the critical remarks of S. Freyne, ‘Bandits in Galilee: A Contribution to the
Study of Social Conditions in First-Century Palestine’, in J. Neusner et al., eds, The
Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Essays to Howard Clark Kee, Philadelphia
1988, 50–68.
25 Jos. Ant. Iud. 14.9.2 (159f.). Bell. Iud. 1.10.5 (204f.). Horsley, ‘Ancient Jewish
Banditry’ (n. 10), 413. Idem, ‘Josephus and the Bandits’ (n. 10), 53–6. I. Benjamin,
‘Bandits in Judaea and Arabia’, HSCPh 88, 1984, (171–203) 176f. Freyne, ‘Bandits’
(n. 24), 55–8.
26 Accepted as such, but still included under the model of the social bandit by
Horsley and Hanson, Bandits (n. 6), 64:
The Galilean brigands pursued by Herod in 38 were clearly an important
part of the continuing opposition to Herod as he attempted to consolidate
his own power as the Romans’ client king.
Cf. the conclusion of Freyne, ‘Bandits’ (n. 24), 58:
Our argument has been that the brigands who appear in Galilee at the
beginning of Herod’s reign do not fit the category of social bandits,
at least as described by Horsley. Their activity is not directed toward
vindicating the oppressed peasantry but is motivated rather by animosity
toward those who were about to usurp their social position as large
landowners within the province.
27 Jos. Bell. Iud. 1.10.5 (205).
28 Jos. Ant. Iud. 15.5.1 (119f.), esp. § 120. On this see Shaw, ‘Tyrants, Bandits and
Kings’ 186f.
29 Jos. Bell. Iud. 2.4.1 (56). Ant. Iud. 17.10.5 (271f.).
30 Jos. Bell. Iud. 2.4.2 (57–9). Ant. Iud. 17.10.6 (273–6).
31 Jos. Bell. Iud. 2.4.3 (60–3). Ant. Iud. 17.10.7 (278–84).
32 Cf. above, pp. 84–6.
33 Jos. Bell. Iud. 2.4.3 (62).
34 Jos. Ant. Iud. 17.10.8 (285).
35 See the account of this phase in Schürer, History (n. 1) 330ff.
36 Benjamin, ‘Bandits’ (n. 25), 178f.
37 The chronological distribution of the ‘bandit references’ is clear from the table in
Shaw, ‘Tyrants, Bandits and Kings’, 204, fig. 2 (Correction to Table I: Antiquitates
16 contains not ‘11’ but just 1 reference to archileistes). This shows a concentration
200