RELIGION AND SOCIETY BEFORE 70C.E 89Holy MenMore common among the troublemakers were the holy men. Josephus’s hos-
tility to this group was unqualified and his information often seems willfully
misleading. Nevertheless, six individuals can be assigned to this group with
some confidence: Jesus of Nazareth (Ant18.63–64); the Samaritan who led
his armed (!) followers onto Mount Gerizim, the site of the destroyed Samari-
tan temple (Ant18.85–87); John the Baptist, who had committed no crime
but aroused suspicion because of his ability to attract followers (18.116–19);
Theudas,whosaid hewasaprophetand ledagroupintothe desert,promising
to split the Jordan River (20.97–99; cf. Acts 5:36, which assigns him 400 fol-
lowers); an Egyptian (Jew?) who led his many followers to the Mount of Ol-
ives, where he promisedthem he would make the wallsof Jerusalem fall down
and lead them in to take control (20.169–72; War 2.262);^100 James, the brother
of Jesus, and some associates (Ant 20.200–203). In addition, Josephus men-
tions unnamed “magicians” and “deceivers,” who flourished in the procura-
torship of Felix (20.167–68).
BrigandsMen Josephus called brigands (leistai) are the most numerous group of trou-
blemakers, and in some ways the most controversial in modern scholarship.
Oneimportanttendency seesbehindeverybrigand arevolutionaryideologue,
motivated by “nationalism” or messianic ideology or legal zeal (i.e., it assimi-
lates the brigands to other groups of troublemakers). Another tendency sees
behind Josephus’s greedy and tyrannical criminals social bandits in the Hobs-
bawmian sense—“primitiverebels,” RobinHood–like heroes ofthe downtrod-
den. I prefer to see the brigands as violent people who had fallen through the
cracks of a rickety economy, though the case of Judas of Galilee reminds us
that successful brigand groups might mutate into bands of armed messianists
or legal rigorists.^101
philosophy? Ho wcan their philosophy be reconciled with the Pentateuchal assumption that
kingship is a legitimate form of government? Was it only foreign kingship they opposed?
(^100) In War 2.262 he is said to have had 30,000 followers, which is patently absurd; inAntFelix
kills 400 and captures 200, figures that are no doubt equally false but at least may give a more
realistic idea of the size of his following.
(^101) SeeAnt20.4–5; 113; 131; 160–66, passim for other mentions of brigand groups or unattrib-
uted acts of brigandage. The largest outbreak of brigandage occurred during the revolt. For brig-
ands as ideologues the classic account is Hengel,Die Zeloten; for the social banditry approach,
see R. Horsley, “Josephus and the Bandits,”JSJ10 (1979): 37–63; “Ancient Jewish Banditry and
the Revolt against Rome,”CBQ43 (1981): 409–32. My vie w(see “Josephus in Galilee”) dra ws
on post-Hobsbawm discussions of ancient brigandage, especially by B. Shaw, “Bandits in the
Roman Empire,”Past and Present105 (1984): 3–52, and some of the contributions to A. Wallace-
Hadrill,Patronage in Ancient Society(London: Routledge, 1989); also B. Shaw, “Tyrants, Bandits,