90 CHAPTER TWO
These cases (except perhaps the brigands) were marginal, even in the rela-
tively turbulent first century. In the main, power continued to be mediated in
conventional ways by recognized authorities—at least until the period imme-
diately preceding the outbreak of the revolt, when even the high priests began
to gather bands of brigands, plunder the countryside, and vie with each other
for control in Jerusalem. Josephus himself may serve as an example of the
regular social functioning of Jewish ideology: he was a priest from a good but
not leading family, well educated in the Torah,^102 “and so” also an inspired
(entheos) foretellerof thefuture (War3.351–54).^103 Hewas laterdisenchanted,
but this seems to have been a reaction to the role of eschatological prophecy
in promoting the failed revolt. In any case, this is precisely the sort of conver-
gence of roles that I argue was normal for Palestinian Jewish elites and sube-
lites. On the other hand, that the system was in some trouble is suggested by
Josephus’s apparent idleness before the revolt, an issue that I will discuss in
more detail presently.
The marginal cases show, however, that the elements of the ideological
complex that constituted Judaism could function as separate sources of power,
especially when their institutional bases—the Temple, priesthood, official
scribalclass—weretooweaktoholdthemtogether.Theprestigeandauthority
of the Torah could empower those who claimed expertise in its manipulation,
and the prestige and authority of the myth could empower a different group
of experts. And, because when all is said and done, Jewish Palestine was in
many respects a normal part of the ancient Mediterranean world, expertise at
violence and forcible redistribution of wealth, too, had its attractions, as it did
throughouttheregion.Butwhenbrigandbandsbecamesuccessful,theyoften
tried to tap into the ideological mainstream (e.g., Judas the Galilean, with his
legal rigor).
I should add parenthetically that this conception of the separability of the
two main ideological axes of ancient Judaism, with their potential to generate
at the margins of society separate types of organization, crystalizing around
individual experts, has the advantage of helping to explain the origins of
Christianity.Jesuswasthefigureexpected tousherintheendofthe dominion
of evil and the beginning of the rule of God; he and his followers were re-
and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus,”JJS44 (1993): 176–204.
Josephus mentions some troublemakers who seem to have attracted followings largely because
they were tall and muscular, when most Palestinian men were not (Ant17.273–84). This may
not be the whole story.
(^102) This is clearly so, though his account of his own precocity (Life 7–9) may stretch the point.
My skepticism about his knowledge of the Torah(Josephus, pp. 24–35) has been correctly criticized.
(^103) Josephus avoids calling anyone but the biblical authors “prophets”; the standard treatment
of prophecy in Josephus is J. Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,”JJS25 (1974):
239–62.