ZEALOTS AND SICARII

Introduction

This article deals not only with the group of fighters for the freedom of Israelknown from *Josephus as the "Zealots," but includes in its survey other groupswith similar aims, particularly the Sicarii.

Judea differed from the other provinces in the east of the Roman Empire in that itnever resigned itself to Roman rule and did not willingly become integrated into theImperial system. From the beginning of the Roman conquest its history was one ofbitter struggle accompanied by revolts against the Imperial power. Although therewere revolts in the Western parts of the Empire too (in Britain and Gaul and by theBatavi), these were not as frequent and they generally occurred in the early stagesof Roman occupation and on the frontiers of the Empire. In Judea, however, aprovince that lay in the heart of a vital area, between Syria and Egypt, relationswith the Roman authorities were in a state of almost continuous tension from theperiod of *Pompey and *Gabinius until after the *Bar Kokhba War.

The causes of this tension are to be found first and foremost in the religious-ideological conflict between the belief of the Jews in the doctrine that they were theChosen People and therefore unique and the bitter fact that they were forciblysubjected to the rule of an idolatrous empire which accorded divine honors to itsemperors. This empire was the complete antithesis of the spiritual conception andway of life of the Jews, and the tension found its resolution in the strengthening ofa messianic-eschatological faith at the center of which stood the hope of the revivalof the glory of Israel and the downfall of "the kingdom of arrogance." The intensityof this feeling and these yearnings increased with the passage of time and wasnurtured by the deterioration in relations between the Roman administration of theprovince, which gave its support to non-Jewish elements and based itself on them,and the Jews, as well as by the spiritual and social developments within the Jewishcommunity itself. In the year 66 C.E. the great majority of the people supported therevolt against the procurator Florus, some enthusiastically and some withreservations; only a minority, such as *Agrippa II, were prepared to employ force tosuppress the uprising while it was still in its initial stages. The ferment, however,was provided by certain groups among the Jews which developed a specific anddefinite ideology of objection in principle to Roman suzerainty. Other elementsattached themselves to these groups, and their activism was no less positive despitethe fact that the principles upon which they based themselves were less clearlydefined.

The essential lines of the ideological currents, activities, and main divisions of theJewish freedom fighters at the close of the Second Temple period can only bedrawn in a general way. Fate has willed it that the main source of knowledge of thisremarkable phenomenon – the ideology of Jewish liberty in this period – was theirinveterate and uncompromising opponent, Josephus. Josephus not only wrote hismost important work on this subject, The Jewish War, as the official historian of theFlavian dynasty and with personal reasons for denigrating the image of the rebelsagainst Rome; he also developed a theory according to which the extremistelements among them, who constituted only a minority of the people, dragged intheir wake the whole Jewish population in the direction of an insane rebellion.Josephus almost completely ignored the messianic-eschatological aspects of thestruggle. Nevertheless, even from his prejudiced and one-sided account, somethingof the ideals which animated the Jewish warriors in their struggle against Romeemerges.

The "Fourth Philosophy" and the Sicarii

In Book 7 of The Jewish War (253–74) Josephus distinguishes in a general waybetween the various parties which took part in the resolute stand against Rome. Inrespective order, he mentions the Sicarii, the followers of *John of Giscala, thesoldiers of *Simeon bar Giora, and finally the Zealots. The main distinctions areexemplified also in incidents which he describes in his detailed description of thesesects in the earlier books of The Jewish War. Both references help towards anunderstanding of events. As stated, the Sicarii are mentioned first in the generalsummary in Book 7. Elsewhere Josephus describes the emergence of this extremefreedom group against the background of the establishment of the Province ofJudea, which was connected with the census instituted by *Quirinius, the legate ofSyria, in the year 6 C.E. (Ant. 18:4–10). The census was a profound shock to theJewish people as a whole and it was only after considerable effort that the highpriest at the time, Joezer ben Boethus, succeeded in quietening the emotionsaroused among the majority of the people. Nevertheless, *Judah the Galilean ofGamala in Gaulanitis joined forces with *Zadok the Pharisee to issue a call forarmed revolt, since in their eyes the census represented outright slavery. In theirspeeches they went so far as to declare that God would come to the aid of thosewho did not spare themselves in the struggle. According to Josephus, Judah andZadok were the founders of the "Fourth Philosophy," the other three being the*Pharisees, the *Sadducees, and the *Essenes. After they acquired a great numberof followers they involved the Jewish body politic in uprisings and sowed the seedsof the future catastrophes which were to overwhelm the Jewish people. Later on,after he gives a description of the "three philosophies," Josephus returns to Judah,whom he refers to simply as "the Galilean," and gives a succinct account of his"philosophy." According to him the adherents of this philosophy agree in generalwith the Pharisees, and are distinguished from them only by their unbounded lovefor freedom and by the fact that they accept God as their only master and leader.They are freely and readily prepared to submit to even the most horrible of deathsand to see their relations and friends tortured rather than accept human domination.Josephus even emphasizes that this resolute determination of theirs is widelyknown and therefore there is no fear that the truth of what he says will bechallenged; on the contrary, he is afraid that he may not have sufficientlyemphasized their indifference to torture (Ant. 18:23–5).

In The Jewish War (2:117–8) only a precis is given of this. The census of Quiriniusis not even mentioned in this connection – only that *Coponius was sent asgovernor to Judea. During his years of rule a Galilean called Judah incited thepeople to revolt against the Romans and accused them of cowardice for consentingto pay taxes to the Romans and tolerating the rule of man when their only ruler wasGod. This man Judah was a "sage" (!"#$!%&') and the founded a sect which wasentirely different from all the other sects. Zadok the Pharisee is not mentioned at allin the War; nor does Josephus mention in this work that, apart from their principleof freedom, the philosophy of the Zealots was identical with that of the Pharisees.Nowhere does he mention the end of Judah the Gaulanite, or Galilean; only in theNew Testament (Acts 5:37) is it stated that he was put to death by the Romans.

It seems reasonable to accept the theory of those scholars who identify Judah theGaulanite with Judah ben Hezekiah, who headed the revolt in Galilee against Varusafter the death of *Herod in 4 B.C.E. (Ant. 17:271–2; War 2:56). Thus Judahassembled a large number of followers and attacked the royal palace in *Sepphoris,the capital of *Galilee. According to Josephus he had aspirations to the throne ofJudea. And whereas he gives the details of the fate which befell the other leaders ofrebellion at that time, such as Simeon of Transjordan and *Athronges and hisbrothers, and the manner in which the rebellions were suppressed, he is completelysilent about the fate of Judah. It would appear that he escaped and reemerged tenyears later, by which time his ideology had already been worked out anddisseminated among the whole people. The father of this Judah was that *Hezekiahwho rose to fame as a fighter and leader in the forties of the first pre-Christiancentury, during the rule of Julius Caesar, and was executed by Herod at thebeginning of his political career when he was appointed governor of Galilee. Hisexecution produced a wave of bitterness in Judea and even resulted in Herod'sbeing summoned before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Of Hezekiah we are told that he was active in the area bordering on Syria and thathis execution by Herod was greeted enthusiastically by the Syrians (War 1:204–5;Ant. 14:159–60). This is easily explained on the assumption that Hezekiah was anative of Gamala in the Gaulanitis, as is mentioned explicitly with regard to Judah,the father of the Fourth Philosophy.

Hezekiah and his son were the founders of a dynasty of leaders of an extremistfreedom movement, a dynasty which it is possible to trace until the fall of *Masadaand the final crushing of Jewish opposition to Rome. They, the proponents of theFourth Philosophy, were the first to raise the standard of revolt against the RomanEmpire and were the last of those who waged the battle in Ere( Israel itself andpreached rebellion throughout the length and breadth of the Diaspora. Among thedescendants of Judah was *Eleazar b. Jair, the commander of Masada. Eleazar andhis men are usually called Sicarii ()$*+,$"$) by Josephus, and the same historianalso explicitly identifies the Sicarii with the fomenters of unrest after the census ofQuirinius (War 7:252–5): "This fortress was called Masada; and the Sicarii whohad occupied it had at their head a man of influence named Eleazar. He was adescendant of the Judas who, as we previously stated, induced multitudes of Jewsto refuse to enroll themselves when Quirinius was sent as censor to Judea. For inthose days the Sicarii banded together against those who consented to submit toRome and in every way treated them as enemies, plundering their property,rounding up their cattle, and setting fire to their habitations, protesting that such

persons were nothing but aliens who so ignobly sacrificed the hard-won liberty ofthe Jews and admitted their preference for the Roman yoke."

In consequence of this, it should in general be assumed that when Josephus refersto the Sicarii, the reference is to the successors of Judah the Gaulanite, theupholders of the extremist ideology. Apart from the quotation given above in whichhe identifies the fomenters of unrest in the time of Quirinius with the Sicarii, thefirst time he feels the need to employ the term Sicarii is against the background ofthe events during the procuratorships of *Felix (52–60 C.E.) and *Festus (60–62).The word itself is a Latin one, and Josephus points out that it was given to thembecause of the dagger (sica) which they carried concealed in their garments andwith which they were accustomed to dispose of their enemies (War 2:255, Ant.20:186). It is clear that such a pejorative name was first given to them by theirRoman opponents.

The name Sicarii appears for the period of the procuratorship of Felix only in TheJewish War (2:254–7). They are mentioned there as a new phenomenon and in thiscontext Josephus does not give the connection between them and the FourthPhilosophy. It would appear that the novelty consisted in the technique which theyemployed to dispose of political opponents. According to Josephus they used tochoose particularly the festivals: they would mingle with the crowds and put theiropponents to death without any possibility of being identified. Their first victimwas *Jonathan (b. Anan), who had previously been high priest. His murder is alsodescribed in the parallel passage of the Antiquities (20:162–66), where it is statedthat it was carried out under the influence of the procurator Felix, who wasinterested in getting rid of Jonathan by means of the "bandits" (-.!%+/). Hence noone was punished for the murder of Jonathan. "The 'bandits' adopted the custom ofcoming to Jerusalem during the festivals and concealing their weapons in the sameway and carrying out their crimes." Thus, in the Antiquities Josephus describes thesame system and methods as he does in the War against the background of theprocuratorship of Felix, but without mentioning the same Sicarii. In both worksJosephus refrains from presenting any ideological explanation of the stimulusbehind these acts. The first time Josephus explicitly mentions the Sicarii in theAntiquities is during the procuratorship of Festus (Ant. 20:186–7), and he goes onto describe their activities against the background of the procuratorship of *Albinus(62–64 C.E.). During that procuratorship the Sicarii adopted a new tactic of seizinghostages in order to obtain the release of their comrades who had fallen into thehands of the Romans. It was thus that they seized the secretary of *Eleazar, the sonof the previous high priest, *Ananias, who served as "captain of the Temple"(!%,+%.01' %"2 34,"2) and sent a message to Ananias that he would be releasedonly in exchange for ten of their men who were being held by Albinus. When theysucceeded in this, others were captured and held as hostages and similarly releasedin exchange for other Sicarii (Ant. 20:208–10).

The New Testament also mentions the Sicarii during the procuratorship of Felix(Acts 21:38). According to this reference the Roman officer Claudius Lysias was ofthe opinion that *Paul was identical with an Egyptian visionary who had led 4,000Sicarii into the wilderness. It is, however, highly doubtful if there is anyjustification for assuming any connection between the Egyptian prophet and theadherents of the Fourth Philosophy.

The few references to the Sicarii in the Talmud already belong to the period of thewar itself. First there is the Mishnah (Makhshirim 1:6): "It once happened that themen of Jerusalem hid their fig-cakes in the water because of the Sicarii, and thesages declared them not susceptible [to ritual uncleanness]." Similarly in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (7 p. 20, version (B), ed. Schechter, 19452): "When Vespasian cameand surrounded Jerusalem… the Sicarii took the initiative and set fire to all thegranaries." In Eccles. R. to 7:12 there is mention of Ben Batia5, "the head of theSicarii in Jerusalem," and to the same category of information belongs the story of*Abba Sikra, the leader of the biryonim, the son of the sister of Rabban *Johanan b.Zakkai (Git. 56a).

As is evident from the interchange of Sicarii and Zealots (Kanna'im) in the text ofAvot de-Rabbi Nathan, and as one can also infer from the use of the name Sicarii inActs, it is by no means certain that in the talmudic passages the word necessarilyrefers to the Fourth Philosophy and to the adherents of the Galilean dynasty. It ispossible that the word is sometimes used more flexibly than in Josephus.

The suggestion has also been put forward that the "Galileans" mentioned byEpictetus (Arrian, Discourses 4:7, 6) are in fact the disciples of Judah the Galilean,but the accepted view which identifies them with the Christians seems morereasonable.

In the period between the census and the outbreak of the Great Revolt thedescendants of Judah are mentioned only once. Two of his sons are referred to –Jacob and Simeon, who were crucified by the procurator Tiberius Julius*Alexander between 46 and 48 C.E. (Ant. 20:102). There is no information as to theactivities for which they received this punishment, or whether their area ofoperation was Galilee or Judea. It is clear, however, even in the absence of suchinformation, that they stood at the center of the rebel activities, and when theopportunity presented itself with the outbreak of the Revolt, *Menahem, one of thedescendants of Judah, took a leading part in the events.

After the offering of the daily sacrifice for the welfare of the Emperor wasdiscontinued on the initiative of Eleazar the son of Ananias, and fighting wasraging in the streets of Jerusalem between the rebels and those who strove for peacewith the Romans, the peace party being aided by the soldiers sent by Agrippa II,there was created a situation whereby the royal troops held control of the UpperCity while the rebels were in control of the Temple and the Lower City. Theoutcome was decided when many of the Sicarii joined forces with the rebels. Thearmy of Agrippa was routed and his opponents broke through into the Upper Cityand set not only the royal palace on fire, but "eager to destroy the moneylenders'bonds, and to prevent the recovery of debts, in order to win over a host of gratefuldebtors and to cause a rising of the poor against the rich, sure of impunity," theyalso burned the archives. This passage seems to point to the extremist socialideology of the Sicarii under the leadership of Menahem.

The fortress of *Antonia also fell to the rebels and a siege was laid to the palace ofHerod. At this stage, however, a schism took place. Menahem, who had alreadygained control of Masada, acquired a rich booty of weapons with which he armedhis adherents. He then began to act as the sole leader of the revolt. "He returned likea veritable king to Jerusalem, became the leader of the revolution, and directed the

siege of the palace."

Menahem captured the palace of Herod with the exception of the three towers(Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne) in which the Roman soldiers took refuge. It wasat this time that the former high priest Ananias and his brother were captured andput to death by Menahem's men. His ambition, which apparently had a messianic-eschatological character, aroused the opposition of the other rebels commanded byEleazar the son of Ananias. They attacked him when he was dressed in royal robesand accompanied by his admirers. In the fight Menahem was placed at adisadvantage. He himself escaped to the Ophel, but was captured and put to death.A similar fate overtook his associates, of whom the most prominent was *Absalom.Many of the Sicarii were killed and a siege was laid to those who hid themselves.Some of them, under the leadership of Eleazar b. Jair, a member of the family ofJudah the Galilean, found refuge in Masada, which, as stated, had earlier beencaptured by Menahem (War 2:422–48).

From this time on the Sicarii ceased to be the guiding factor in the events inJerusalem. Nevertheless, they continued to exist and it was they who were destinedto be the last to hold aloft the standard of rebellion. Although they were no longerin control of Jerusalem and it is not possible to ascribe predominance to them inany part of Jewish Ere( Israel apart from Masada, it can be stated with nearcertainty that many of them continued their activities in other parts of the countryand were a factor in the incitement of the people. It is possible to see evidence ofthis in the explicit and detailed information given of the activities of the Sicariiwhen, after the destruction of the Temple, they fled to Egypt and Cyrenaica. It iscertain that these refugees did not come from Masada nor belong to the soldiers ofEleazar b. Jair, since those all met their end at Masada. These men were completelyconsistent in their outlook, following the principles of Judah the Galilean, just asbefore their flight to Egypt and Cyrenaica they had clung to them in Jerusalem andelsewhere in Ere( Israel. In addition, the considerable number of the warriors whofought under Simeon bar Giora at the time of the siege is easily explained on theassumption that many Sicarii were included in his army, since they felt themselvesmore in sympathy with him than with the other leaders in besieged Jerusalem. Theirextreme social views bridged the gap between them and Simeon. It might be addedthat the impression that the Sicarii were an influential factor in besieged Jerusalemis gained to some extent from the above-mentioned talmudic sources. The group ofSicarii who formed a unit under the leadership of Eleazar b. Jair – that group towhich Josephus consistently gives the name Sicarii – entrenched itself in Masadaand the sphere of its operations was confined to the adjacent area, and there ismention of their attack on En-Gedi (War 4:398–405). When Simeon bar Giora wasforced to leave the vicinity of Jerusalem owing to the pressure of Anan ben Anan,he found a temporary refuge with the Sicarii in the wilderness of Judea. Theyrefused, however, to join him in major exploits which would take them far awayfrom their secure base in Masada (War 4:503–7) and there is no further mention ofthem by Josephus until after the destruction of the Temple. The recent excavationsat Masada revealed many potsherds on which the names of the Masada fightersappear. From these sherds one learns of their conscientious observance of thecommandments of the Torah, finding expression in such things as their meticulousadherence to the laws of the tithe. Masada is also the only place apart from*Qumran where fragments have been found of the *Dead Sea sect (a scroll of theSabbath Sacrifice). It seems that its source was the people of Qumran who joined

the warriors of Judea at some stage of the war, although one is not entitled toidentify the members of the sect, on this account, with the Sicarii or the Zealots. Itis a fact that the Essenes participated in the Great Revolt. It was the secondsenatorial governor of the province of Judea, *Silva, who decided finally to stampout the last vestiges of Jewish resistance and to capture the last stronghold of theJews. After all hopes of maintaining this position had failed, and the Romans werepoised to storm it, the defenders took the decision to immolate themselves ratherthan fall into the hands of the Romans. This decision to commit mass suicide was inkeeping with the tradition of the Fourth Philosophy. For many of them the choicewas in fact between death through torture by the Romans or taking their own lives.Others without doubt had to choose between the difficult alternative of acceptingRoman domination, which in their eyes amounted to "Desecration of the DivineName" (see *Kiddush ha-Shem) and death. But even those who might have beenprepared to accept Roman rule and make a public declaration to that effect couldonly look forward to cruel slavery, while a life of shame faced the women. It is truethat Jewish soldiers had been placed in a similar situation in other localities in Ere(Israel, and yet only in isolated instances does one hear of suicide in preference tocaptivity. Thus there is reference to the suicide of the last defenders of *Jotapata, aswell as of many of the defenders of Gamala (War 4:79), the city of origin of Judah,the spiritual father of the movement. Josephus also tells of the two priests Meir theson of Bilga and Joseph the son of Dalaeus who threw themselves into the flamesof the Temple, and that the survivors of the Zealots sought their death in the field ofbattle after the capture of the city. Dio Cassius also reports the suicide of many ofthe defenders of the Temple.

In this mass suicide the essential principle of the Fourth Philosophy undoubtedlyplayed an important role. They faced the danger of transgressing their religiousfaith, since in their eyes recognition of Roman rule was tantamount to idolatry. Thechoice before them therefore was not different in essence from that which faced theJewish communities of the Rhineland in the First Crusade of 1096 or the martyrs ofYork in 1190.

The two speeches of Eleazar b. Jair in which he urged his followers to put an end totheir lives bear the genuine stamp of the Greek rhetoric of the period of the RomanEmpire, and it is not difficult to detect in it characteristic ideas taken from Greekphilosophy and literature; at least the Stoic tradition recognized the legitimacy ofsuicide. But in addition to this it contains also the specific ideas of the FourthPhilosophy as indeed Eleazar b. Jair could give expression to it at that fatefulmoment. There is also in it something of the historical philosophy of Josephushimself as it finds expression in the War generally. Already at the beginning of hisspeech Eleazar emphasizes the essential idea which inspired him and his men not tobecome subservient to the Romans or to any man but only to God himself (War7:323–5): "Long ago, my brave men, we determined neither to serve the Romansnor any other save God, for He alone is man's true and righteous Lord; and now thetime is come which bids us put that resolution to the test by our actions. In thiscrisis let us not disgrace ourselves. We who in the past refused to submit even to aslavery involving no peril, let us not now, along with slavery, deliberately acceptthe irreparable penalties awaiting us if we are to fall alive into Roman hands. For aswe were the first to revolt, so are we the last in arms against them. Moreover, Ibelieve that it is God who has granted us this favor, that we have it in our power todie nobly and in freedom – a privilege denied to others who have met with

unexpected defeat" (War 7:407–19).

The influence of the Sicarii refugees was not confined to Egypt. It also embracedthe city of *Cyrene and other cities of the Libyan Pentapolis. A certain Jonathan, aweaver by trade, was active in these cities, influencing many of the Jews belongingto the lower classes in Cyrene to follow him to the wilderness where he promised toshow signs and wonders, and here also the local Jewish authorities intervened andbrought about his arrest by the Roman governor Catullus (War 7:437–40).

As to the extent to which these Sicarii refugees and those who were influenced bytheir views were a long-range factor in the developments which took place in thelands of the Hellenistic Diaspora, particularly in Egypt and Cyrenaica in the yearsprior to the revolt during the reign of Trajan and which was its cause, it is difficultto give an answer in the complete absence of sources.

To sum up: it was the outlook of Judah of Gaulanitis and his successors whichconstituted the most extreme expression of opposition to Roman rule and of Jewishindependence. The yearning for the redemption of Israel was the heritage ofvirtually all sections and classes of the people, but among the adherents of theFourth Philosophy it led them to immediate action and an activism which knew nocompromise, as well as to the recognition that divine aid would come to theenergetic and the bold. Acknowledgment of Roman rule was tantamount in theireyes to an affront to divine rule and constituted !illul ha-Shem. Consequently theymaintained adamantly that it was essential to come out openly in war againstRoman rule and also to compel those who disagreed with them to join the struggle.The Hasmoneans in their time had taken up arms when the situation becameimpossible and the danger of extermination threatened the Jewish faith, but onlywhen the opportune moment came did they act to realize the ancient aspirations ofthe people for political freedom. The freedom fighters of the school of Judah ofGaulanitis, on the other hand, raised the banner of freedom and opposition tomortal rule without taking account of the realities of the situation. Their ideas fellon fertile ground as a result of the developments which had taken place in theprovince of Judea and in Jewish society during the last years of the Second Templeperiod. The eschatological tension which was characteristic of that generation fittedin exactly with the Fourth Philosophy. Nevertheless, only a small number of thefighters for the freedom of Judea during the Great Revolt accepted the specificideology of the Sicarii of the school of Judah or of the Zealot priests of Jerusalem,between whom and the Sicarii one can posit only a hypothetical connection, as willbe seen below. It can also be assumed that, among other groups, the question ofleadership and the realization of the eschatological hopes of Menahem constitutedfrom the outset an obstacle to complete identification with the ideology of theSicarii.

The Zealots of Jerusalem

Among many scholars and in general works one frequently finds that the extremewing of the freedom fighters which crystallized in the period immediately prior tothe destruction of the Temple is identified with the Zealots (6.-7%+/, Kanna'im).Judah of Gaulanitis is regarded as the founder of the Zealots, who are identified asthe proponents of the Fourth Philosophy. In the original sources, however, no suchidentification is anywhere clearly made, and the question is hardly raised of the

relationship between the Sicarii, the upholders of the Fourth Philosophy, and theZealots. Josephus himself in his general survey of the various groups of freedomfighters (War 7:268–70) enumerates the Sicarii first, whereas he mentions theZealots last. "In this lawlessness the so-called Zealots excelled, a class whichjustified their name by their actions; for they copied every evil deed, nor was thereany villainy recorded in history that they failed to emulate zealously. And yet theytook their name from their professed zeal for virtue, either in mockery of those theywronged, so brutal was their nature, or reckoning the greatest of evils good." Inpresenting the events themselves Josephus first mentions the Zealots in connectionwith the composition of the temporary government in Jerusalem under theleadership of Joseph ben Gorion after the victory over *Cestius Gallus in the year66 C.E. Josephus explains why *Eleazar b. Simeon, who distinguished himself inthe fighting against the Romans, undoubtedly playing a decisive role, and tookpossession of most of the booty and the treasury of Cestius Gallus, was notappointed to the government. He explains that he was passed over "because theyobserved his despotic nature and that the Zealots under him conducted themselveslike his bodyguard" (War 2:564). One gains the impression that Josephus isreferring here to the Zealots who placed themselves under Eleazar's command as aphenomenon which had existed for some time and does not therefore realize thatthe reader has not heard of their appearance before.

Despite the fact that Eleazar b. Simeon was temporarily overlooked and notincluded either in the government of Jerusalem or in the list of the areacommanders of the country who were appointed after the victory over the governorof Syria, he nevertheless maintained his decisive influence. In the words ofJosephus, "Gradually, however, financial needs and the intrigues of Eleazar hadsuch influence with the people that they ended by yielding the supreme commandto him" (War 2:565). Josephus returns to the Zealots in his description of thesubsequent events at the end of Book 2 (651) against the background of thepreparation for the war against the Romans in 66–67 and underlines the antagonismwhich existed between Anan b. Anan and those called the Zealots. This latter namebecomes more frequent in the context of the fratricidal war which broke out inJerusalem after the war in Galilee. The war approached Jerusalem towards the endof 67 C.E.; the Roman army was already in control of *Jabneh and *Ashdod andlarge numbers of refugees and fighters streamed from the different places to thecapital and joined the extreme elements there (War 4:138). These reinforced unitsbegan to take action against the moderate elements who until then had been incontrol of the city, particularly against individuals who were suspected of wishingto come to terms with the Romans. The first victim was a certain Antipas, whobelonged to the house of Herod and tried to stop the rebels at the outbreak of therevolt. Together with two other members of the royal family he was imprisoned,and shortly afterwards they were put to death. The extremists took a revolutionarystep in abolishing the system which had been established since the time of Herodand reserved the *high priesthood to a number of families which in effectconstituted the priestly oligarchy. This privilege had not been abolished even in thetime of *Agrippa I. The high priesthood had continued to alternate between theseoligarchic houses; from time to time the transfer was accompanied by reprehensibledealings, such as the bribery of the appointing authorities. In the years immediatelypreceding the Revolt the right of appointment was entrusted to Agrippa II, and thelast high priest appointed by him was *Mattathias, the son of Theophilus II. It wasnow decided to introduce a complete democracy in the high priesthood and to

choose by *lot. The lot fell upon Pin5as (*Phinehas) b. Samuel of Kefar Havta.With the aim of portraying this change in the blackest of colors Josephus states thatPin5as was "a man who not only was not descended from high priests, but was sucha clown that he scarcely knew what the high priesthood meant. At any rate theydragged their reluctant victim out of the country, and dressing him up for hisassumed part, as on a stage, put the sacred vestments upon him and instructed himas to how to act in keeping with the occasion. To them this monstrous impiety wasa subject for jesting and sport, but the other priests, beholding from a distance thismockery of their law, could not restrain their tears and bemoaned the degradationof the sacred honors" (War 4:139–57). This Pin5as is also mentioned in thetalmudic sources, according to which he was a stonemason by trade, but they addthat he had married into the House of Hillel. The view expressed by some scholarsthat this appointment constituted the restoration of the ancient glory of the highpriesthood, since he belonged to the House of Zadok, in whose hands the highpriesthood had been until the appointment of the Hasmoneans, is highly doubtfuland there is nothing to support such a suggestion in the extant sources.

In his actual description of these events, the arrest and execution of the threemembers of the Herodian house and the revolutionary change in the selection of thehigh priest, Josephus does not mention the Zealots as such. The subsequentaccount, however, establishes it as a certainty that it was they who acted as theinstigators. At the assembly called at the insistence of the most important of theprevious high priests, under the influence of these events, *Joshua b. Gamla andAnan b. Anan castigated those present for their indifference and explicitly incitedthem against the Zealots. In other words, they attributed to them those actionswhich they were denouncing. It is in this context that Josephus for the first timeexplains the name Zealot, which henceforth he uses frequently, "for so they calledthemselves, as though they were zealous in the cause of virtue and not for vice inits basest and most extravagant form" (War 4:161).

The existing leadership in Jerusalem decided to embark upon an open struggleagainst the attempts of the Zealots to seize the reins of power. Numbered amongthese chief opponents, in addition to Joshua b. Gamla and Anan, were Goryon b.Joseph and *Simeon b. Gamaliel (War 4:159). In a rousing address Anan incitedthe citizens of Jerusalem against the Zealots who had fortified themselves in theTemple, and the Temple Mount was besieged. The struggle was decided in favor ofthe Zealots only with the entry of thousands of Idumeans into Jerusalem whoranged themselves on the side of the Zealots (War 4:162–304).

The Zealots were now in control of Jerusalem (winter of 67–8 C.E.) and their chiefopponents were put to death, among them Anan b. Anan, Joshua b. Gamla, Goryonb. Joseph, and the commander *Niger from Transjordan. Meanwhile, however, asplit took place between the Zealots and the Idumeans (War 4:305–65).

At this stage of events John of Giscala was in alliance with the Zealots, althoughJosephus does not mention his activities either with regard to the fight which tookplace in Jerusalem or the execution of the leading opponents of the Zealots. It ispossible that John contented himself with giving aid to them without involvinghimself personally in the fight against those with whom he had previouslycooperated. The Zealots and John of Giscala were now the two main powers inJerusalem, but this situation changed fundamentally when Simeon bar Giora

wrested control of the Upper City and portions of the Lower City. As a result thecapital was divided into three parts. Eleazar b. Simeon continued as the commanderof the Zealots, fortifying himself and his men particularly in the Temple. Theymaintained their hold there as a result of a topographical advantage which made upfor their numerical inferiority compared with the men of John (War 5:5–10). Afterthe appearance of *Titus before the walls of Jerusalem in the spring of 70, however,John took the bold step of adding the Zealots to his command; using the excuse ofthe Festival of Passover, according to Josephus, he infiltrated his armed men intothe Temple area and thus established his domination over them (War 5:98–105).From this time onwards the Zealots were under the overall command of John in thesame way as the Idumeans accepted the command of Simeon bar Giora. Both ofthese groups, however, continued to maintain their separate identity (War 5:250)and in the battles which raged between the Romans and the Jews during the siegethe Zealots, distinguishing themselves by their courage, achieved a prominencecomparable to those who belonged to the other camps (War 6:92, 148).

The sources are silent as to the fate of Eleazar b. Simeon and *Zechariah b.Avkilus, the principal leaders of the Zealots. It would appear that they were killed,or died, before the final fall of the Temple. Of at least one of the outstanding Zealotfighters during the siege, Judah b. Ari, it is known that he escaped from Jerusalemand that many of the fighters rallied around him. In the forest of Jardes they wereencircled by a unit of Roman cavalry, while the infantry were cutting down thetrees to blaze a trail through the forest. All the Jewish fighters, among whom theremust have been many of the Zealots from Jerusalem, fell in the battle, includingtheir Zealot commander Judah (War 7:210–15). Their end was more similar to thatof the Sicarii – despite the fact that it was not actually a case of mass suicide but thefall of heroes in the field of battle – than to the fate of Simeon bar Giora or John ofGiscala, who fell alive into the hands of the Romans.

There seems little reason to doubt that the priests of Jerusalem were the fomentingelement among the Zealots. Their essential base was always the Temple Mount andat least two of their principal leaders, Eleazar b. Simeon and Zechariah b. Avkilus,were priests (War 4:225). To them one may add, as will become clear below,*Eleazar b. Hananiah. Josephus also testifies that three more of their leaders werenotables in Jewish society, "Judas the son of Chelcias, and Simon son of Esron,persons of might, along with a man of some distinction, Ezechias of Chobari" (War5:6).

It would even appear that the very name Kanna'im has a priestly connection, in thatthey consciously regarded themselves as the spiritual descendants of the "Kanna'i"par excellence of Jewish tradition, Pin5as (*Phinehas) the son of Eleazar (Num.25:11).

As has been seen, at least immediately after the Roman victory in *Beth-Horon, theKanna'im emerge as a recognized and definite factor, but it is possible to go furtherback and see as an act of the Zealots the decisive step which from the formal pointof view marked the outbreak of the Revolt – the cessation of the daily sacrifice inhonor of the Roman Emperor at the instigation of Eleazar b. Hananiah (War 2:409).It appears that despite the fact that he belonged to high priestly circles, hissympathies were all with the Kanna'im. It is not out of place to note that accordingto the talmudic tradition (Git. 56a) this symbolic and decisive act is connected with

an individual who is known from Josephus as the second most prominent leader ofthe Zealots after Eleazar b. Simeon, namely Zechariah b. Avkilus: "Through thescrupulousness of R. Zechariah b. Avkilus our sanctuary was destroyed, ourTemple burnt, and we ourselves were exiled from our land." The suggestion thatthe Zealots received considerable support from Bet Shammai has been put forwardin the past and there is undoubtedly some basis for it.31 A consideration of theactivity of Bet Shammai at the beginning of the Revolt as described in the halakhicsources fits in perfectly with what has been assumed as the ideology of theKanna'im. Is it, however, possible to see the activities of the Kanna'im as theexpression of a defined current and a consolidated group in the period prior to theRevolt?

It is certain that Josephus, the primary and most important source, and the only oneto describe the ideologies of the Jews at the close of the Second Temple, does notemploy the word Zealots at all in respect to the previous events. One cannot,however, infer far-reaching conclusions from this silence, since even at thebeginning of the Revolt he does not mention the formation of the sect, and it is onlycasually that he notes the connection between Eleazar b. Simeon and the Kanna'im,referring to them consistently only from Book IV of the War onwards. However,even the other sources shed little light on the subject. The reference of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan to them (ARN1, ed. Shechter, 6, p. 32) is already to the days of thewar and the siege of Jerusalem, while the statement of the Mishnah (Sanh. 9:6), "Ifa man stole a sacred vessel or cursed by kosem, or made an Aramean woman hisparamour, the Zealots may fall upon him," is directed more to a way of life than toa group with a definite ideology. On the other hand, more weight can be given tothe name Zealot given to Simeon, one of the disciples of Jesus, in Luke and Acts(Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13).

Nevertheless, without coming to any definite conclusion with regard to the firstappearance of this name, the question can be raised of the initial emergence of anideology firmly maintained by a specific group and active in the life of the Jewsduring the Second Temple period.

The historians of the 19th century took it as a fact that the Zealots were identicalwith the adherents of the Fourth Philosophy, and therefore constituted a division ofthe same movement to which the Sicarii belonged. This opinion was widelyaccepted by various scholars. On the other hand, in the 20th century certain scholarsflatly denied any connection between the adherents of the Fourth Philosophy andthe Zealot ideology, and even the emergence of a specific Zealot faction in theperiod preceding the Revolt. It must, in fact, be conceded that there is no clearevidence in the sources of any connection between the Fourth Philosophy and theZealots during the Revolt, especially as the interpretation given to the solereference to the followers of Menahem as "Zealots" (War 2:444) is open to doubt.

Despite this, however, there appears to be a certain connection between the two andthe assumption, though far from decisive, is a reasonable one. As mentioned above,Josephus (Ant. 18:4; cf. 18:9) mentions as the two founders of the FourthPhilosophy Judah of Gamala in Gaulanitis and Zadok the Pharisee. Both the nameZadok and his appellation as a Pharisee suggest, on the one hand, that he belongedto the priestly circles and, on the other, that he was a well-known sage. In a

hypothetical manner one can posit this Zadok as the formulator of that ideologywhich later characterized the Zealots of Jerusalem during the Revolt, whose leaderswere the priests of the Temple and who were close to the Bet Shammai.

This assumption of a certain connection between the Zealots and the FourthPhilosophy also serves better to explain the decisive importance which Josephusascribes to the Fourth Philosophy, on which he places the chief blame for the chainof disasters which befell the Jewish people, culminating in the destruction of theTemple. The limitation of the members of the Fourth Philosophy to the Sicarii,whose activity was impressive, in fact, only at the beginning of the Revolt, andeven then it was not they who were responsible for the cessation of the dailysacrifice for the welfare of the Emperor, raises the question as to why Josephusfound it necessary to underscore with so much emphasis the fateful guilt of the menof the Fourth Philosophy, to make it appear that they were responsible for all thedisasters. It is perhaps possible here to add the two different versions of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, in which Zealots are mentioned in one and the Sicarii in the other,and their mention in juxtaposition in the statement of the Church FatherHippolytus, although the passage is far from clear. And lastly, it should bementioned that neither Zealots nor the Sicarii were prepared to be captured alive bythe Romans.

In the light of these considerations it appears that one can posit, albeit with somecaution, the hypothesis that there was indeed a certain connection and cooperationbetween the founders of the Zealots and of the Sicarii during the census ofQuirinius, and that from the outset the difference between these two movementswas a tangible one. This difference found its expression in the decisive schismwhich took place during the Revolt after a brief period of cooperation at itsbeginning.

What then was it that differentiated the Zealots from the Sicarii and the othergroups who fought against the Romans for the freedom of Judea? The differencescan be enumerated as follows:

1. Whereas the Sicarii obtained their initial inspiration from Gaulanitis and Galileein the north, the Zealots were directed by a group of priests in Jerusalem, and it wasthe Temple which was their main stronghold.

2. The Sicarii continued to be loyal to the dynasty of Judah the Galilean, their lastleaders being Menahem and Eleazar b. Jair, who were scions of that house; incontrast the Zealots showed no particular loyalty to any house or dynasty.

3. The Zealots were not of the opinion that the eschatological hopes of the Jewsfound their expression in the person of any of their leaders. Although Eleazar b.Simeon emerges as their outstanding leader, other leaders worked together withhim, and the impression gained is that of collective leadership. Side by side withhim stood personalities like Zechariah b. Avkilus and the brothers Simeon andJudah, the sons of Ari.

Simeon bar Giora

The program of the Zealots included the reform of the institution of the high

priesthood. As soon as they were able to do so they went to the extreme in thedirection of democratizing this office by completely abolishing the high priestlyoligarchy which had stamped its impression on Jewish society from the time ofHerod and, as mentioned above, chose the incumbent by lot. In the siege ofJerusalem during the spring and summer of 70 C.E., however, the leaders of theSicarii are conspicuously missing, and the leaders of the Zealots were relativelyunimportant; although prominent in the affairs of the capital, they did not hold themost important posts. The two commanders in besieged Jerusalem until its fall atthe hands of Titus were *Simeon bar Giora of Gerasa and *John of Giscala. It ispossible to a certain extent to trace the connections of Simeon with the Sicarii inMasada, as well as to detect the bond that was established during a certain periodbetween John and the Zealots of Jerusalem. Nevertheless it is completely out of thequestion to maintain that Simeon definitely belonged to the Sicarii or that Johnbecame a member of the Zealots. All that it is possible to establish is that there wasa certain identification between Simeon bar Giora and the Sicarii as regards theirsocial outlook and that at a certain stage during the struggle John came to recognizeclearly that the Zealots were his true allies in a consistent and effective standagainst the Romans. Both Simeon and John are mentioned side by side with Eleazarb. Simeon as the commanders in Jerusalem, not only by Josephus but by the Romanhistorian Tacitus, who enumerates Simeon first and Eleazar last. Titus alsoregarded Simeon bar Giora as the leading commander and it was he who waschosen by the Romans to exemplify an enemy commander and lead the triumphalprocession in Rome. The elevation of Simeon to the position of commander-in-chief was surprising when one takes into consideration his lowly origin and theexistence of other individuals more firmly rooted in the tradition of an anti-Romanideology. Internal developments in Jewish Ere( Israel and the abolition of theinfluential institutions which existed at the beginning of the Revolt, coupled withthe charismatic personality of Simeon, go a long way towards explaining hisadvancement. It would also appear that from the outset Simeon exemplified thestrength of certain rebel elements in Jewish Transjordan, an area which had alreadyshown its love for freedom after the death of Herod, when uprisings which brokeout in Ere( Israel were crushed out by Varus, governor of Syria. From JewishTransjordan also came one of the important commanders at the outbreak of theGreat Revolt, Niger (War 2:520, 566), a man with an outlook and socialconnections completely different from those of Simeon. The source of Simeon'sstrength, however, was by no means confined to Transjordan and gradually hebecame the spokesman of great masses throughout Jewish Ere( Israel. Despite thefact that there is no proof that Galileans joined his forces to any extent, it appearsthat his influence was decisive in the villages of Judea and Idumea. The suggestionhas already been put forward that many of the Sicarii joined him – namely, thosewho did not fortify themselves in Masada. With the murder of Menahem and thedeparture of Eleazar b. Jair to this isolated stronghold they had lost their traditionalleadership. It is a fact that no less than 10,000 out of the 23,400 fighters whodefended besieged Jerusalem were directly under the command of Simeon, and tothem are to be added 5,000 Idumean soldiers who were associated with them, asagainst only 6,000 men under the direct command of John of Giscala and 2,400Zealots who accepted the leadership of Eleazar b. Simeon (War 5:248–50). It thusemerges that under Simeon there were about two-thirds of the total of the defendersof Jerusalem, and the Romans were naturally justified in regarding him as thecommander of the enemy forces. As his name indicates, he was descended from

proselytes, and he came from *Gerasa, an important Hellenistic city in Transjordan.The ruins of Gerasa and the inscriptions discovered there distinguish it from all thecities in the country and reveal the quality of its life as a Hellenistic city influencedby its Oriental background. Simeon was a young man when the Revolt broke outand was distinguished by his physical strength and courage ( ʾ +-*8 9: !;<+%"'*+3 %1-<= 9$+#>,7? War 4:504). Simeon first acquired fame by his actionsagainst the Roman army which had advanced against Jerusalem under thecommand of Cestius Gallus. He attacked them from the rear as they were makingtheir way to the ascent of Beth Horon and carried away many of their pack animalsas spoil to Jerusalem (War 2:521). When local commanders were appointed to thevarious districts of Ere( Israel by the temporary government, neither Simeon northe chief hero of the fray, Eleazar b. Simeon, was among them. Already thenSimeon had gathered around him many of the rebels in the most northerly toparchyof Judea, that of Acrabatene. In his activities in that area the extreme social policyof Simeon and his followers already became evident. According to Josephus he didnot content himself with attacking people of wealth; he even subjected them tophysical torture. When Anan b. Anan, who was at that time the central figure in thetemporary government in Jerusalem, sent an army against him Simeon apparentlycould not maintain his position against the authorities in Jerusalem and escapedsouth to Masada, and henceforth Idumea became his field of action (War 2:652–54), whereas in Jerusalem itself and in the northern part of Judea access was barredto him as long as the temporary government, which had been set up immediatelyafter the victory over Cestius Gallus, was in control.

At first Simeon was regarded with suspicion by the Sicarii in Masada, a fact whichproves that under no circumstances can he be regarded as having been one of them.According to Josephus he was permitted access only to the lower part of thefortress. They nevertheless cooperated with him in the raids which he made in thevicinity, since they saw in him "a man of congenial disposition, and apparently tobe trusted." New opportunities opened for him, however, when Anan b. Anan fellinto the hands of the Zealots. In addition, he increased the number of his followersby proclaiming the emancipation of all slaves (War 4:503–6). His influence spreadover all parts of Judea, in the north as well as Idumea, and the masses flocked to hisbanner, with the result that "his was no longer an army of mere serfs or brigands,but one including numerous citizen recruits, subservient to his command as to aking" (War 4:510). Simeon's growing influence throughout Judea and Idumeabrought him into conflict with the Zealots in Jerusalem and with John of Giscala, towhom it became evident that he was depriving them of any hold in Judea beyondthe capital. The opponents of the Zealots who escaped from Jerusalem, whatevertheir ideological outlook might be, found refuge with Simeon (War 4:353). Anattempt of the Zealots to restrain Simeon was unsuccessful, but Simeon did notconsider his army sufficiently strong to wrest control of Jerusalem, and instead hefirst tried to bring Idumea under his influence. His attempt to gain control ofHerodion ended in failure, but he did succeed in conquering Hebron (War 4:510–37).

Meanwhile the tension between Simeon and the Zealots increased. The latter tookSimeon's wife captive in the hope of exerting pressure against him, but, confoundedby Simeon's furious reaction, they released her (War 4:538–44) and the conflict inJerusalem paved the way for Simeon. It would appear that the impetus to invite himto Jerusalem as a counterweight against John and the Zealots came from the

Idumeans, and in Nisan (Xanthicus) of 69 C.E. Simeon arrived at the gates ofJerusalem and gained control of a large section of the capital, though his attempt toforce the Zealots out of their stronghold in the Temple Mount ended in failure (War4:566–584). He continued, however, to hold sway over the whole of the Upper Cityand part of the Lower City, establishing his headquarters in the Tower of Phasael(War 5:169). During the period of the siege Simeon took the initiative in arranginga truce with John of Giscala with the aim of cooperation against their commonenemy (War 5:278) and henceforth fought shoulder to shoulder with him. On theother hand he dealt harshly with the upper classes, whom he suspected ofcollaboration with the Romans. Among those put to death by him were Mattathiasb. Boethus and three of his sons (War 5:527–33, 6:114), and he took part togetherwith John in the defense of the Temple before it was destroyed by fire (6:72).

Simeon bar Giora, in contrast to the Sicarii in Masada and the Zealot leaders inJerusalem, who either committed suicide or fell in the field of battle, did not dieduring the war. He was taken alive by the Romans and Titus even issued an orderto save him for the triumph which he was going to organize in Rome (War 7:25–36). He was sent to his death in that triumph amidst the applause of the Romans, inaccordance with Roman custom.

Simeon was beyond doubt the most charismatic figure among the leaders of theRevolt. According to Josephus, his soldiers were prepared to go through fire andwater for him (War 5:309) "and his was no longer an army of mere serfs orbrigands, but one including numerous citizen recruits, subservient to his commandas to a king" (War 4:510). Simeon was first and foremost the leader of the lowerclasses in Transjordan, Judea, and Idumea. It would be difficult to accord Simeonthe epithet of "sage" as Judah and Menahem, the leaders of the Sicarii, are referredto (!"#$!%+/), nor did his influence and prestige obtain any support from thetradition of a family which for generations had been held in esteem by the people.

The sources are almost completely silent with regard to individual figures whobelonged to the camp of Simeon. There is mention of his nephew Eleazar, whodistinguished himself in battle (War 6:227), and one of his outstanding aides wasHanan of Emmaus. Nothing, however, is known of the origin or social affiliationsof the others, such as Ardala (6:360), Castor (5:322), Judah b. Judah (5:534), Judahb. Mareotes (6:148), Simeon b. Hosaiah (6:148), or Malachi (6:92). One can pointto a number of the prominent lines of Simeon's social policy: his vigorous activityagainst the propertied classes already in the first stage of the war and hisemancipation of the slaves. Side by side with these one must underscore the specialrelationship which he had with his followers.

In accordance with his policy in The Jewish War, Josephus tends to ignore themessianic-eschatological element in the Great Revolt. Nevertheless, messianichopes were associated with Simeon and, as has been stated, in one place (War4:510) Josephus points out that he was obeyed like a king. There is also a basis forthe suggestion that there is a connection between the coins bearing the inscription "Li-Ge'ullat "iyyon " ('To the redemption of Zion') and the eschatological hopeswhich were reposed in the personality of Simeon bar Giora. If, therefore, withregard to social outlook Simeon was close to the general spirit of the Sicarii, therewas nevertheless room for disagreement between them in the question of theleadership, since many of the Sicarii found it difficult to recognize the leadership of

someone who did not belong to the family of Judah the Galilean. Nevertheless thedifferences were straightened out to some extent as a result of the absence of arecognized Sicarii leader in Jerusalem after the death of Menahem. Nor should oneoverlook the fact that whereas the Sicarii leaders, Judah and Menahem, were"sages," the impression gained of Simeon is that of a man who could under nocircumstances be regarded as such according to the ideas prevailing in the SecondTemple period. The personality of Simeon bar Giora fits in well with the pictureone has of many of the popular leaders in the preceding period, during thedisturbances which took place after the death of Herod. As is known, at that timethere appeared, in addition to Judah b. Hezekiah, who was active in Galilee andconquered Sepphoris, a number of other leaders whose field of action was JewishTransjordan and Judea itself. One of them was Simeon, the slave of Herod, whowas distinguished by his handsomeness, his physical stature and bodily prowess.He assumed the crown and gathered around him a number of followers whoproclaimed him king. He also set on fire and looted the royal palace in Jericho.Simeon himself met his death in battle together with his supporters, most of themfrom Perea (Ant. 17:273–77, War 2:57–59).

Similar to Simeon's conduct and activities were those of another rebel againstHerod's son, Athronges, a shepherd by calling and of lowly origin, who alsodistinguished himself in stature and courage. He also aspired to the throne and,aided by his four brothers, crowned himself. According to Josephus he took adetermined line against the Romans as well as against the members of the Herodianhouse. He made Jews as well as non-Jews suffer if it was to his advantage. Of hisactivities his attack upon a Roman troop in *Emmaus is mentioned and thus hisfield of action was in the west of Judea. His activities came to an end as a result ofthe efforts of Archelaus after he had consolidated his position as ethnarch of Judea(And. 17:278–84; War 2:60–64).

There is a parallel between such figures as Simeon the slave of Herod, Athronges,and Simeon bar Giora. All of them were of lowly origin and all three aspired to thethrone, and it is almost certain that this aspiration was connected with the messianicexpectations which had become widespread among the people at the time and in thecase of all of them these expectations had a social character.

John of Giscala

To an entirely different social milieu belonged *John of Giscala (Gush @alav inGalilee). Josephus, who is practically the sole source for him, displays a specialanimosity towards the personality of John. Whereas with regard to the individualsand the principles which animated the other freedom fighters he reveals anideological opposition and blames them for the catastrophes which followed, and,as the near-official historian of the Flavian house he was obliged to denounce themwith every kind of denunciation, with regard to John his criticism reveals aprofound personal animosity. The roots of this animosity, which runs like a scarletthread throughout the War, and even more so in his autobiography, the Life, are tobe found mainly in his experiences while serving as commander of Galilee, whereJohn was the most determined and unwavering of his opponents and did everythingto have him deposed. This is undoubtedly the source of that hostility and thedifference between his description of John and that of the other rebel leaders. The

characteristics of John as presented by Josephus (War 2:585–88) reveal suchunmistakable signs of contemporary rhetoric as to remind Thackeray, one of themost brilliant students of Josephus, of the description of Catilina by the Romanhistorian Sallust. "Poor at the beginning of his career, his penury had for a longtime thwarted his malicious designs; a ready liar and clever in obtaining credit forhis lies, he made a merit of deceit and practiced it upon his most intimate friends;while affecting humanity, the prospect of lucre made him the most sanguinary ofmen; always full of high ambitions, his hopes were fed on the basest of knaveries.For he was a brigand, who at the outset practiced his trade alone, but afterwardsfound for his daring deeds accomplices, whose numbers, small at first, grew withhis success. He was, moreover, careful never to take into partnership anyone likelyto fall an easy prey to an assailant, but selected good, strapping fellows, with stouthearts and military experience." Nevertheless, even Josephus does not attempt toimplicate John as one of the inciters of the rebellion against Rome, as a personwhose destructive ideology, on the lines of the Fourth Philosophy, was a factor inbringing about the conflagration. John is not mentioned at all as one of those whoraised the standard of revolt against the Romans at its outset. On the contrary, whenhe saw that some of the inhabitants of Gush @alav (*Giscala) were influenced bythe ferment, he essayed to restrain them and demanded that they remain loyal toRoman rule (Life, 43). The developments which took place in Galilee, however, asin other regions, in the relations between the Jews and their non-Jewish neighborscaused him to change his attitude. Gush Halav itself was attacked by those non-Jews, who wrought havoc in it. John, who was already then a central figure in thetown, armed his followers and made a counterattack against those who had causedthe destruction in his town. He gained ascendancy over them and erected a wallaround Gush Halav to protect it against similar assaults in the future (Life 44–45).It is also stated that John amassed a fortune through his successful businessdealings, which were connected with the sale of the abundant olive oil from Galileeto the Jews of adjacent Syria who refused to use non-Jewish oil.

Josephus testifies that John maintained close contacts with influential circles in theimportant cities of Galilee such as Gabara, where one of his friends, Simeon, wasactive (Life 124) and *Tiberias. An important accretion of strength came to himfrom Jewish refugees from *Tyre (Life 372). Among his friends in Jerusalem wasnumbered Simeon b. Gamaliel (Life 192). In two parallel narratives in the War andin his Life Josephus gives the details of John's activity in Galilee prior to theappearance of the Roman army there under Vespasian in 67 C.E. Naturally hisdescription revolves around the personal relations between himself and John. Thelatter even attempted to influence the leaders of the revolt in Jerusalem to deposeJosephus from his post as commander of Galilee. The Life in particular gives detailsof this; of special importance in this episode is the revelation of the close relationsand complete mutual understanding which existed between John and RabbanSimeon b. Gamaliel. According to Josephus, Simeon on his part exercised hisinfluence on the former high priests Anan b. Anan and Joshua b. Gamla to comeout against Josephus and four emissaries were sent to Galilee for the purpose ofdeposing him. Their mission ended in complete failure, however, and Josephuscontinued to serve as commander of Galilee (Life 189–335).

A close examination of Josephus' accounts in his two works gives rise to seriousdoubts about their credibility, both with regard to the events in Galilee in generaland his relationship with John in particular. Two things, however, are clear. One is

that John played a leading role in the opposition to Josephus in Galilee and theother is that he cannot under any circumstances be regarded as the mouthpiece ofthe radical elements. It is known that he maintained excellent relations with Simeonb. Gamaliel, and his opposition to Josephus received the approval of Anan b. Anan.

It fell to John's lot to be the last of the fighters of Galilee. Whereas Josephussurrendered in Jotapata and the last Jewish strongholds in Galilee were captured bythe army of *Vespasian and their defenders put to the sword or taken prisoner enmasse, John succeeded in escaping from Gush @alav at the head of his men andmaking his way to Jerusalem (War 4:84–111).

In Jerusalem John at first enjoyed prestige as the outstanding fighter against theRomans and the open opponent of Josephus, who had failed in the defense ofJotapata and whose surrender to the Romans cast suspicion on all his previousconduct of the war. As against this, the success of John in extricating himself withall his men, and bringing them to aid in the defense of Jerusalem, stood outprominently. The fact that he was at the head of an armed force wholeheartedlydevoted to him, and subject to his personal command, gave him an advantage overall the other leaders in Jerusalem. The possibility that other refugees from Galileejoined him, since it is a fact that many Jews from Galilee fought in the defense ofJerusalem, including no less than 2,000 from Tiberias alone (Life 354), should betaken into consideration. After his arrival in Jerusalem, John maintained his old tieswith the existing Jewish leadership. On the other hand, however, he benefited fromthe influence of Zealot circles who opposed that leadership, since they saw in him aman of energy and an uncompromising fighter against the Romans. According toJosephus he infused a spirit of courage and hope in the inhabitants of Jerusalem,"extolling their own power, and ridiculing the ignorance of the inexperienced; evenhad they wings, he remarked, the Romans would never surmount the walls ofJerusalem, after having had such difficulty with the villages of Galilee and havingworn out their engines against the walls" (War 4:126–7). When the conflict brokeout in Jerusalem between the Zealots and the traditional leadership under Anan b.Anan, John still belonged to the party of Anan but, in consequence of the prestigehe enjoyed also among the Zealots, he was chosen by Anan as the intermediarybetween him and them. According to Josephus he betrayed Anan and it was he whoencouraged the Zealots to call upon the Idumeans for aid against the existingleadership (War 4:208–23). Reference has already been made above to thedevelopment of the relations between John and the Zealots of Jerusalem whichbrought about close military cooperation between his men and the less numerousZealots. In point of fact it was only the appearance of Simeon bar Giora whichprevented the concentration of the high command in besieged Jerusalem in thehands of John. After his entry into the capital Simeon remained his sole rival andboth served as commanders in the city.

Josephus consistently attempts to place the blame for the desecration of the Templesquarely on the shoulders of John. According to him John requisitioned the woodwhich had been stored for Temple purposes in order to erect towers for militarypurposes (War 5:36). When he and his men seized control of the Temple fromEleazar and the Zealots, not only did they exploit the Passover for their ownpurposes, but the majority of his men were not even ritually clean when theypenetrated the Temple precincts (War 5:100), and he concludes, "For he hadunlawful food served at the table and abandoned the established rules of purity of

our forefathers" (War 7:264). The main purpose of these accusations was to putJohn in as bad a light as possible. John fulfilled a task of primary importance in thedefense of the fortress of Antonia. After its fall he sought refuge in the tunnels, butfinally met a fate similar to that of Simeon bar Giora and fell into the hands of theRomans, unlike the Sicarii and the Zealots. But whereas Simeon was put to deathby the Romans, John was sentenced to life imprisonment (War 6:434).

John of Giscala represents an outstanding example of the spread of the ideal ofliberty into the widest sections of the people. A moderate and peace-loving manfrom Galilee, an intimate of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and not unacceptable tothe ruling oligarchy of the high priesthood (Anan b. Anan), he joined the revolt outof the necessity of the situation at the same time as even the recognized leaders ofJewish society (the heads of Bet Hillel and the high priestly circles) were swept intoit by the general enthusiasm. In the course of events, when he came to Jerusalemafter the collapse in Galilee, he felt a spiritual affinity to the Zealots there andjoined them in their war against the existing leadership, but there is no need toassume that there was any decided ideological identification on his part with theZealots.

Despite all of Josephus' attempts to besmirch him more than all the otherindividuals who were active at that period in Jerusalem, he hardly ascribes to himany special acts of cruelty, as he does to Simeon bar Giora. Nor is there anyevidence of a socialistic revolutionary outlook or messianic-eschatological ideologyin his personality. Nevertheless he was filled with the conviction that God woulddefend His city (War 6:98–99).

Although it cannot be denied that the picture given here of the various currents inthe Jewish freedom movement is to a considerable extent hypothetical, one thing isnevertheless indisputably clear, namely, that the unifying factors among themoutnumbered the divisive ones. From this point of view there is perhaps somejustification for the view of those historians who are accustomed to speak generallyof a Zealot movement which fearlessly raised the standard of revolt against theRoman Empire when it was at the height of its power.

[Menahem Stern]

Later Scholarship

The above classic article by Menahem Stern is reprinted unchanged because itremains the best ordering and interpretation of evidence in Josephus and inChristian, rabbinic, and pagan sources on the rise and spread of the Jewishrevolutionary movements from the first century B.C.E. to the aftermath of thedestruction of Jerusalem in the 70s C.E. This brief supplement is intended only toclarify, expand, and update certain aspects.

The only point in Stern's article which has to be corrected in light of subsequentscholarship is the final, concluding statement that "the unifying factors among [theJewish revolutionary groups] outnumbered the divisive ones." Scholars today tendrather to see myriad partisan rivalries and societal fissures in Judea as contributingfactors to the outbreak of the rebellion and the massive extent of the destruction itbrought. Josephus has succeeded in obscuring the number and variety of

revolutionary movements and leaders, and the ancient authors of the other sourceshad no interest in providing better information. But it seems clear now that theincidental mention of different rebels in Josephus and the New Testament, and theproliferation of small militia-type groups during Josephus' term as general in theGalilee, provide a glimpse into a much wider phenomenon. Moreover, these groupstended to compete with each other more often than they combined to opposeRoman rule in Judea. The chief victims of the Sicarii were all Jews, the recordedactivity of other militants seems to have claimed mostly Jewish victims, and the in-fighting in the Galilee and Jerusalem not only resulted in high numbers ofcasualties but seriously hobbled the Jewish defensive strategy against the Romanattack. Josephus records in disgust and horror that the Sicarii primarily terrorizedJewish opponents, "saying that they were no different from non-Jews" (allophyloi):this redefinition of one's kinsmen as foreign is a psychological and rhetorical tactictypical of intense internal conflict.

Connected with this theme, recent work has also favored the picture of wide andenthusiastic participation by the Jewish upper classes in the rebellion. The Jewishruling class was a heterogeneous group, whose members were in constant tensionwith each other and with the less privileged groups in Jewish society; this has beenespecially emphasized in recent studies of patronage in the countryside of Judaeaand Galilee. Aristocrats formed their own factions or joined existing ones in orderto gain control of the revolt and maintain their status and position overall. Theirfailure to unify as a class contributed to the widening fractures in Jewish society,and encouraged Rome to view the revolt as a grave threat. Just before the war, "akind of enmity and factionalism broke out among the high priests and leaders of theJerusalem populace" who joined hands with "the boldest revolutionaries" to carryout their high-level power feuds (Ant. 20:180, cf. Pes. 57a). Many aristocrats wereto be found in the ranks of Simeon bar Giora's organization, and some of John ofGischala's closest associates, before he betrayed them, were also of the ruling class.Eleazar, son of the high priest Hananiah and sagan of the Temple, was apparently amember of or very close to the priestly party of the Zealots. And significantly, thefirst revolutionary government formed in Jerusalem in 66 C.E. and lasting about sixmonths was composed of high priests, noble priests, and lay nobility: the roster ofnoble rebels is long. These rebellious aristocrats joined the struggle for a variety ofmotives, including desire to protect their local power and influence, a feeling ofgenuine outrage at abuses by the Roman procurators, and infection by themessianic fervor and eschatological hopes pervading Judea before the war (whichwas not, despite conventional belief, limited to the less educated masses).

At the same time, recent work has tried to illuminate, from very uncooperativesources uninterested in the topic, the social and economic hardships and struggleswhich contributed to the formation and continuing activity of revolutionary groupsand the outbreak of rebellion. The aristocrats' inability and the Romans'conspicuous unwillingness to help control what was apparently a festeringeconomic crisis, punctuated by periodic famine and agricultural failure (only dimlyperceived in the literary and archaeological evidence), obviously drove some to joinanti-establishment movements large and small. But this factor can be overstated,for economic destitution did not always lead to political rebellion; there is noreason to think that the economic situation in Judea was worse than in otherpeaceable areas of the empire, and the echoes of the slogans and platformsespoused by the Jewish rebel groups have nothing to do with economic injustice.

Despite the fact that economic grievance indisputably contributed to the appeal ofrevolution, especially to the destitute and dispossessed, there is no sound basis forthe model of the Jewish rebellion as two rebellions in one, an economic uprising bythe peasant against the propertied classes and a national uprising against a foreignempire. Motives were complex, varied, combinatory, changing, and oftenindistinguishably tangled.

When social hierarchies weaken and the state power proves inefficient, banditryoften arises (especially when socio-political instability is exacerbated by economichardship). Brigandage and piracy were a problem which accompanied the RomanEmpire throughout its entire history, particularly in peripheral, less fullyRomanized, and less stable areas. The rebels in first-century Judea are routinelylabeled leistai, "brigands," by Josephus, and there is little doubt that this quasi-legallabel, applied indiscriminately to both prominent named and smaller unnamedbands, reflects the official Roman perspective, which viewed political upstarts asno more than criminals and troublemakers to be exterminated, and treated themaccordingly. Josephus, when he became a historian, found that this attitudeconveniently reflected his personal animus against the militant groups, especiallywhen they attacked wealthy local magnates (but he also absurdly calls his personalenemy John of Gischala a leistes, even though John was well-to-do and well-connected, War 2:587). But the term may conceal a much more complex realitythan can be teased out of the sources, and much recent work has been devoted todistinguishing between common criminals and "social bandits" on Hobsbawm'smodel. The problem is one of perception. Josephus' leistai did not of course presentthemselves as common robbers, nor were they perceived as such in the popularimagination, even less so by the other individuals whom they recruited to theirranks. Moreover, whatever "social bandits" existed in Judea seemed to have beeninfected by, and in turn to have exploited, the growing popular outrage against theRoman Empire and concomitant spreading messianic ideology. Social banditry is(according to the model) a rural phenomenon, yet some of the main revolutionaries– especially the Zealots – seem to have been active in an urban setting. Carefuldistinctions have to made, and the concept of social banditry as a political act willbe found to apply only to the partially visible groups who make brief and enigmaticappearances in the sources. The concept contributes very little to understanding theZealots and Sicarii, who were selective groups founded and led by literateideologues who engaged in overtly political terror; the Zealots, as Stern has madeclear, were a highly specialized group of mostly priests.

No writings by the Zealots or Sicarii have survived to round out and deepen thepicture, no genuine voice of a revolutionary ideologue can be heard directly; beliefand actual rhetoric must be filtered out of the considerable distortions andomissions of the existing sources. It remains true that "… there is no directexpression outside Josephus of the ideology of revolt" (Rajak 2002, 177). Yet muchrecent scholarship has attempted to appreciate the full force of the messianiccharacter and apocalyptic beliefs and professions of many of the revolutionaries,and their impact on the prewar Jewish population at large. The scant indications inJosephus of the messianic nature and eschatological message of many of the rebels– the Sicarii if not the Zealots, and the many "prophets" and unnamed militantsmentioned by Stern – combined with the relatively substantial but enigmatic corpusof apocalyptic and messianic texts from the period (e.g., Psalms of Solomon,Assumption of Moses, Sibylline Oracles III and IV, et al.), have been marshaled to

create a picture of pervasive messianism throughout Palestinian Jewish society inthe first century. But, except for the messianic texts from Qumran (of which thesectarians played no known role in the war), it is not possible to associate anyknown apocalyptic text with a revolutionary group. Nor should one expect to do so.There is no reason to believe that known groups such as the Zealots or even theSicarii with their "fourth philosophy," or unnamed groups, wrote their ownmanifestos or inspirational texts. Messianists who repeated the widely knownprophecy of the next world ruler arising from Judea (recorded by Josephus, War6:312) needed to cite no more than Numbers 24:17, or the eschatological visions inthe book of Daniel. It can be said from the available evidence that messianic hopesaffected all societal sectors, definitely motivated many of the revolutionary groupsagitating for war with Rome, and drove the diehards in Jerusalem to expectsalvation until the very end. On the other hand, Josephus tried to demonstrate in hislife and writings that it was possible to be a strongly believing Jew and acceptaccommodation with the Roman Empire, postponing eschatological hopes for anundetermined, distant future.

[Jonathan Price (2nd ed.)]

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

W.R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (1956); H.H. Rowley, in: ZAWB 77(1958), 184–92; C. Roth, The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls(1958); idem, in: Judaism, 8 (1959), 33–40; idem, in: JSS 4 (1959), 332–55; M.Hengel, Die Zeloten (1961); S. Zeitlin, in: JBL 81 (1962), 395–8; M. Stern, in: TheGreat Man and his Age, The Historical Society of Israel (1963), 70–78 (inHebrew); G. Baumbach, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 90 (1965), 727–40;idem, in Festschrift Leonhard Rost (1967), 11–18; B. Salomonsen, in: NewTestament Studies 12 (1965–6), 164–76; S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots(1967); idem, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (1968); K. Wegenast, in: Pauly-Wissowa 2-e Reihe 9 (1967), 2474–99; H.P. Kingdon, in: New Testament Studies17 (1970/1), 68–72; M. Smith, in: HTR 64 (1971), 1–19; S. Applebaum, in: Journalof Roman Studies 61 (1971), 155–70; M. Borg, in: JTS 22 (1971), 504–12; G.R.Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (1965); Y. Yadin, The Excavation of Masada 1963/4(1965); idem, Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand (1966); idem,in: JSS, 4 (1959), 332–55; C. Daniel, in: Numen, 13 (1966), 88–115 (Fr.); K.Kohler, Festschrift zu Ehren des Dr. A. Harkavy (1908), 6–18; F.J. Foakes Jacksonand K. Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity 1 (1920), 421–5; J.W. Lightley, JewishSects and Parties in the Time of Jesus (1925), 324–95. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ofthe mass of work on Zealots, Sicarii, and other Jewish revolutionaries that hascome out since Stern's article, most important is the English translation of M.Hengel's fundamental book: The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish FreedomMovement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D., trans. D. Smith (1989), which,however, uses "Zealots" to mean all revolutionaries and sees messianism as perhapstoo much of a determining ideology. M. Stern's other article, "Sicarii and Zealots,"in: M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baras (eds.), World History of the Jewish People, 8(1977), 263–301, should also be consulted. Also of fundamental importance is theEnglish translation of Schuerer: E. Schuerer, The History of the Jewish People inthe Age of Jesus Christ, 1–3, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar et al. (1973–87),esp. 2:598–606. GENERAL: M. Black, in: O. Betz, K. Hacker and M. Hengel (eds.),

Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und demNeuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (1974), 45–54; L.I.Levine, in: Cathedra, 6 (1976), 39–60 (Heb.); D.M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6– 74 C.E. (1976); S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita andDevelopment as a Historian (1979); P. Vidal-Naquet, in: Yale French Studies, 59(1980), 86–105; E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (1981); U.Rappaport (ed.), Judea and Rome – The Jewish Revolts (1983); U. Rappaport, in:JJS, 33 (1982), 479–93; idem, in: I.L. Levine, The Jerusalem Cathedra, 3 (1983),46–55; G. Jossa, in: Vichiana (Studi in memoria di Franceso Arnaldi II), n.s. 12(1983), 224–34; V. Nikiprowetzky, in: L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus,the Bible and History (1989), 216–36; J.J. Price, Jerusalem Under Siege: TheCollapse of the Jewish State, 66 – 70 C.E. (1992); I. Ben-Shalom, The School ofShammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Heb., 1993); M. Smith, in: W.Horbury, W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy (eds.), Cambridge History of Judaism, 3(1999), 501–68. ON "BANDITS" AND REVOLUTIONARIES, WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCETO THE JEWISH REVOLT: R.A. Horsley, in: JSJ, 10 (1979), 37–63; idem, in: Journalof Religion, 59 (1979), 435–58; idem, in: CBQ, 43 (1981), 409–32; B.D. Shaw, in:Past & Present, 105, 3–52 and in: JJS, 44 (1993), 173–203; B. Isaac, in: HSCP, 88(1984), 171–203; S. Freyne, in: J. Neusner et al., The Social World of FormativeChristianity and Judaism. Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (1988), 50–68;T.L. Donaldson, in: JSJ, 21 (1990), 19–40. The classic founding discussion ofbandits in modern historiography is E. Hobsbawm, Bandits (1969). ON THE SOCIALAND ECONOMIC FACTORS LEADING TO THE REVOLT: P.A. Brunt: in: Klio, 59 (1977),149–53; M. Goodman, in: JJS, 33 (1982), 417–27; idem, in: JJS, 36 (1985), 195–99;idem, in: A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (eds.), Greece and Rome in EretzIsrael (1990), 39–55; E. Bammel, in: E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesusand the Politics of His Day (1984), 109–28; U. Rappaport, in: A. Kasher et al., Manand Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity (Heb., 1986), 80–86; M. Goodman, TheRuling Class of Judaea. The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66 –70 (1987); H. Kreissig, in: L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bibleand History (1989), 265–77; S. Schwartz, in: F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.),Josephus and the History of Graeco-Roman Period (1994), 289–307; E. Gabba, in:W. Horbury, W.D. Davies, and J. Sturdy (eds.), Cambridge History of Judaism, 3(1999), 84–167. ON MESSIANISM AND APOCALYPTICISM AS THE BACKGROUND TOTHE REVOLT AND IDEOLOGY OF THE VARIOUS REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS. I.Gruenwald, in: ANRW, II.19.1 (1979), 89–118; L.I. Levine, in: Z. Baras (ed.),Messianism and Eschatology (Heb., 1983), 135–52; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, in: D.Hellholm (ed.), Apocalyptism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East(1983), 641–54; R.A. Horsley, in: Nov. Test., 27 (1985), 334–48; R.A. Horsley andJ.S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time ofJesus (1985); J. Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israelafter the Exile (1986); R. Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple JewishPalestine: The Evidence from Josephus (1993); J.J. Collins, in: L.H. Schiffman(ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1990), 25–51; idem, TheScepter and the Star: the Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other AncientLiterature (1995); idem, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1997); A.I.Baumgarten, in: G. Stanton and G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance inEarly Judaism and Christianity (1998), 38–60; W. Horbury, Jewish Messianismand the Cult of Christ (1998); J. Zimmerman, Messianische Texte aus Qumran(1998); T. Rajak, in: A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman (eds.), The First Jewish

Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology (2002), 164–88, with considerablefurther bibliography.

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.