What do you think?
Rate this book
Bandits, Prophets, & Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus
Here is a brilliant portrait of Jewish culture in the first century. This book contains a fresh evaluation of Jesus' relation to this complex society.
312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
5 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 13, 2025
An anti-imperialist masterpiece. Horsley doesn't mince words: Judaism is founded in anti-slavery, class struggle, and self-determination, the struggle of ancient Jews against foreign conquest, enslavement, and exploitation. The voice of God emerges through Moses as a voice of justice, a messianic call to end slavery and toil through the formation of a holy covenant that rejects all masters but that of the divine.
Such a covenant has been betrayed, over and again in Palestine's history, by forces within and without. Various Jewish monarchs, such as King David (~1000BC), consolidated power into an aristocratic priesthood through taxes and tithes to the state and the temple. While a beloved figure in Jewish mythology, David's political history is spottier. His "beloved" rule led to the secession of the Northern Kingdom, who rejected his governance and claims to kingship. A thousand years later, after centuries of successive imperialist rulers, Judas Maccabeus led a liberation movement (166-160BC) that succeeded in excising foreign Hellenistic forces from Palestine. Rather than dismantle the aristocratic priesthood and state war machine, Judas's successors merely replaced its members with their own people—Jews. Taxes and tithes shifted to another set of aristocrats, now hellbent on their own imperialist conquest of neighbouring lands.
The irony of this outcome was not lost on the Jewish peasantry. The ruling classes had never cared for their plight. Whether Persian, Greek, Jewish, or Roman, the peasantry existed as a site of extraction. Through the Maccabean Revolt, the labour of Jewish peasants was funneled towards proto-Zionist terror (111–63BC). Under the rule of the Greeks and Romans, Jewish labour went to gentrification projects. Roman rule (47BC-100AD) was particularly harsh. Jews were double taxed by the priesthood and the imperial centre. Much of this wealth went to the creation of new cities, Hellenistic in culture, filled with icons of foreign gods, idols, and emperors, and populated by rich gentry and aristocrats who didn't respect Jewish customs. Taxes were so high that peasants had to take out loans. Those who couldn't meet their debts had their lands confiscated. Gentrification wasn't simply the movement of gentry into occupied lands, but the theft of family plots from peasants pushed to indebtedness.
Radical Jews understood such conditions as slavery. Slavery to the whims of foreign masters. Slavery to taxes, tithes, and debts. Slavery to a priesthood of Jewish collaborators who used peasant labour to strengthen their own class position and allegiance to Rome. Resistance to Rome was manifold. Social banditry became widespread across Palestine. Many stole from the aristocracy and redistributed their wealth to the poor and needy. Figures like Hezekiah (47-38BC) were folk heroes. Townsfolk hid and protected them from Roman officials, even under the threat of death. Prophets proselytised an eschatological end to the injustices of imperial rule, promising a Jerusalem freed from false idols and debt slavery. Nonviolent protests erupted in city centres ("As if by arrangement, the Jews all fell to the ground, extended their necks, and proclaimed that they were ready to be killed rather than transgress the law", 26-36AD). These protests often ended in bloodshed. Revolts became commonplace. Peasants stormed public archives and burned records of debt (66AD). Sicarii (50-73AD) assassinated high officials with hidden daggers, targeting Jewish collaborators in particular. Political agitators, such as Jesus (6BC-33AD), who radicalised both the lower and middle classes against Roman rule, were crucified as "bandits". Entire towns were burned down and their peoples enslaved—but resistance only grew.
By the time of the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70AD), a group called the Zealots terrorised the aristocracy and gentry of Jerusalem, who had made conditions unlivable for the peasantry. The Zealots overthrew the high priests of Jerusalem and appointed new priests by lot from the peasant population. Allies poured in from Idumea to support the Zealots against the Roman siege. Mass revolts occurred across the holy lands, emboldened by the promise of a truly liberated Palestine, where one's holy covenant with God would be restored through the dismantling of class stratification and imperialist subjugation. But the might of Rome was too great. After four years of resistance, Jerusalem fell, its leaders tortured and killed, and the Second Temple destroyed—leading to the birth of Rabbinical Judaism.
It's easy to fall into despair learning about the outcome of liberation movements, but what's striking is their persistence across mythic and historical time, across generations imagined and real, that tell of an almost ontological desire for liberation, for justice, for a world filled with divine light, rather than cruelty, exploitation, and obscene inequalities. Three thousand years of struggle and Jews are still here, despite countless colonisation events, forced displacements, land thefts, property restrictions, pogroms and genocides, antisemitic conspiracies, and white supremacist violence. From history books like this, we see a glimpse of a better world built up from the grassroots—one where wealth is distributed justly, society is organised democratically, and land is respected and given to those in need of it. It's a Palestine for Palestinians, for the people who work the land, incompatible with the fascist dreams of foreign rulers hellbent on imperialist conquest. It's a humanity founded in the liberation of all living beings from subjugation and theft.
من المية للمية
Such a covenant has been betrayed, over and again in Palestine's history, by forces within and without. Various Jewish monarchs, such as King David (~1000BC), consolidated power into an aristocratic priesthood through taxes and tithes to the state and the temple. While a beloved figure in Jewish mythology, David's political history is spottier. His "beloved" rule led to the secession of the Northern Kingdom, who rejected his governance and claims to kingship. A thousand years later, after centuries of successive imperialist rulers, Judas Maccabeus led a liberation movement (166-160BC) that succeeded in excising foreign Hellenistic forces from Palestine. Rather than dismantle the aristocratic priesthood and state war machine, Judas's successors merely replaced its members with their own people—Jews. Taxes and tithes shifted to another set of aristocrats, now hellbent on their own imperialist conquest of neighbouring lands.
The irony of this outcome was not lost on the Jewish peasantry. The ruling classes had never cared for their plight. Whether Persian, Greek, Jewish, or Roman, the peasantry existed as a site of extraction. Through the Maccabean Revolt, the labour of Jewish peasants was funneled towards proto-Zionist terror (111–63BC). Under the rule of the Greeks and Romans, Jewish labour went to gentrification projects. Roman rule (47BC-100AD) was particularly harsh. Jews were double taxed by the priesthood and the imperial centre. Much of this wealth went to the creation of new cities, Hellenistic in culture, filled with icons of foreign gods, idols, and emperors, and populated by rich gentry and aristocrats who didn't respect Jewish customs. Taxes were so high that peasants had to take out loans. Those who couldn't meet their debts had their lands confiscated. Gentrification wasn't simply the movement of gentry into occupied lands, but the theft of family plots from peasants pushed to indebtedness.
Radical Jews understood such conditions as slavery. Slavery to the whims of foreign masters. Slavery to taxes, tithes, and debts. Slavery to a priesthood of Jewish collaborators who used peasant labour to strengthen their own class position and allegiance to Rome. Resistance to Rome was manifold. Social banditry became widespread across Palestine. Many stole from the aristocracy and redistributed their wealth to the poor and needy. Figures like Hezekiah (47-38BC) were folk heroes. Townsfolk hid and protected them from Roman officials, even under the threat of death. Prophets proselytised an eschatological end to the injustices of imperial rule, promising a Jerusalem freed from false idols and debt slavery. Nonviolent protests erupted in city centres ("As if by arrangement, the Jews all fell to the ground, extended their necks, and proclaimed that they were ready to be killed rather than transgress the law", 26-36AD). These protests often ended in bloodshed. Revolts became commonplace. Peasants stormed public archives and burned records of debt (66AD). Sicarii (50-73AD) assassinated high officials with hidden daggers, targeting Jewish collaborators in particular. Political agitators, such as Jesus (6BC-33AD), who radicalised both the lower and middle classes against Roman rule, were crucified as "bandits". Entire towns were burned down and their peoples enslaved—but resistance only grew.
By the time of the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70AD), a group called the Zealots terrorised the aristocracy and gentry of Jerusalem, who had made conditions unlivable for the peasantry. The Zealots overthrew the high priests of Jerusalem and appointed new priests by lot from the peasant population. Allies poured in from Idumea to support the Zealots against the Roman siege. Mass revolts occurred across the holy lands, emboldened by the promise of a truly liberated Palestine, where one's holy covenant with God would be restored through the dismantling of class stratification and imperialist subjugation. But the might of Rome was too great. After four years of resistance, Jerusalem fell, its leaders tortured and killed, and the Second Temple destroyed—leading to the birth of Rabbinical Judaism.
It's easy to fall into despair learning about the outcome of liberation movements, but what's striking is their persistence across mythic and historical time, across generations imagined and real, that tell of an almost ontological desire for liberation, for justice, for a world filled with divine light, rather than cruelty, exploitation, and obscene inequalities. Three thousand years of struggle and Jews are still here, despite countless colonisation events, forced displacements, land thefts, property restrictions, pogroms and genocides, antisemitic conspiracies, and white supremacist violence. From history books like this, we see a glimpse of a better world built up from the grassroots—one where wealth is distributed justly, society is organised democratically, and land is respected and given to those in need of it. It's a Palestine for Palestinians, for the people who work the land, incompatible with the fascist dreams of foreign rulers hellbent on imperialist conquest. It's a humanity founded in the liberation of all living beings from subjugation and theft.
من المية للمية
November 10, 2021
Understanding the social and political life of a second temple period Jew is critical to understanding the context of many of passages in both Old and New Testaments. Bandits, Prophets, & Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus will help the reader understand the tumultuous times in Palestine during the early 1st Century AD up to and including the Jewish nationwide uprising taking place between 66 and 70AD. The author using multiple sources to understand life in Judea presents his case by describing how the peasantry under extreme pressure was resorting to banditry, how prophesizing continued well into the second temple period helping set the Jewish population's expectations of some type of spiritual help from God, the political resistance leaders who claimed to be the earthly messiahs (anointed earthly king - not the Son of God) following in King David's footsteps, and finally the various movements themselves which influenced religio-political events including the 4th Philosophy movement, the Sicarri and the Zealots. A highly recommended resource for any serious Biblical student.
March 29, 2017
Los autores de este ensayo hicieron una extensa investigación sobre los movimientos religiosos que se dieron en Israel con motivo de la conquista de Palestina por parte de Roma.
El Bandidaje a que se refiere el libro, fue un movimiento producido por la clase más oprimida de Israel que fueron los campesinos. Éstos tenían que pagar los impuestos al gobierno teocrático, más el tributo a los romanos. El bandidaje estaba compuesto por campesinos con tierras o sin ellas, y se levantaron en contra de sus opresores. Uno de los primeros era el líder Hezekiah que fue ejecutado por Herodes; Tholomaus reunió un gran ejército de bandidos que fueron capturados y ejecutados por Fadus c. 46-47 de nuestra era. El líder Eleazar bar Dinai fue ejecutado por el procurador Félix c. 52-60.
Los movimientos mesiánicos se iniciaron con el rey David quien fuera el prototipo. Simón bar Giora y su general Athronges fueron pastores admirables por su estatura y fortaleza humana. Simón fue el líder del grupo llamado "Sicarii", por la espada curva que portaban. Juan de Gischali fue el jefe de los "Zelotes", así llamados por su celo en el cumplimiento de la Ley de Yavé. Estos dos se apoderaron de Jerusalén durante varios años y creyeron haberse liberado del yugo romano, pero en octubre del año 70 la ciudad fue sitiada. Para septiembre fue quemada y arrasado el Templo; sus habitantes fueron muertos o convertidos en esclavos.A bar Giora lo llevaron a Roma, lo vistieron como "rey de los Judíos" y ejecutado luego del desfile militar.
En cuanto a los profetas se menciona a los oraculares como Moisés, Amós, Jeremías, etc.; entre los profetas de acción a Jesús y Juan el Bautista.
El Bandidaje a que se refiere el libro, fue un movimiento producido por la clase más oprimida de Israel que fueron los campesinos. Éstos tenían que pagar los impuestos al gobierno teocrático, más el tributo a los romanos. El bandidaje estaba compuesto por campesinos con tierras o sin ellas, y se levantaron en contra de sus opresores. Uno de los primeros era el líder Hezekiah que fue ejecutado por Herodes; Tholomaus reunió un gran ejército de bandidos que fueron capturados y ejecutados por Fadus c. 46-47 de nuestra era. El líder Eleazar bar Dinai fue ejecutado por el procurador Félix c. 52-60.
Los movimientos mesiánicos se iniciaron con el rey David quien fuera el prototipo. Simón bar Giora y su general Athronges fueron pastores admirables por su estatura y fortaleza humana. Simón fue el líder del grupo llamado "Sicarii", por la espada curva que portaban. Juan de Gischali fue el jefe de los "Zelotes", así llamados por su celo en el cumplimiento de la Ley de Yavé. Estos dos se apoderaron de Jerusalén durante varios años y creyeron haberse liberado del yugo romano, pero en octubre del año 70 la ciudad fue sitiada. Para septiembre fue quemada y arrasado el Templo; sus habitantes fueron muertos o convertidos en esclavos.A bar Giora lo llevaron a Roma, lo vistieron como "rey de los Judíos" y ejecutado luego del desfile militar.
En cuanto a los profetas se menciona a los oraculares como Moisés, Amós, Jeremías, etc.; entre los profetas de acción a Jesús y Juan el Bautista.
August 27, 2023
A generally good and very thorough introduction to social unrest, messianic climate, bandits, and revolution in Israel during the time of Jesus.
Horsley is very class-oriented, which sheds interesting light on the appeal of these movements (and Jesus’ movement) as more than the official narrative coming from the ruling class. His thorough treatment of the combination of Jewish and Roman taxes and their contribution to banditry was very good.
Horsley has a bee in his bonnet about zealots and sicarii. He is pushing back against simplistic Christian narratives about violent messianic expectations. So I think he overstates his case here (and trashes Acts a bit as confused and misdated, as if Josephus is always perfect and to be believed). But I’m sure there’s a whole scholarly debate here I’m unaware of.
Horsley is very class-oriented, which sheds interesting light on the appeal of these movements (and Jesus’ movement) as more than the official narrative coming from the ruling class. His thorough treatment of the combination of Jewish and Roman taxes and their contribution to banditry was very good.
Horsley has a bee in his bonnet about zealots and sicarii. He is pushing back against simplistic Christian narratives about violent messianic expectations. So I think he overstates his case here (and trashes Acts a bit as confused and misdated, as if Josephus is always perfect and to be believed). But I’m sure there’s a whole scholarly debate here I’m unaware of.
May 29, 2024
A STUDY OF MOVEMENTS IN THE TIME OF JESUS AND SOON AFTER
The authors wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “The Jewish peasantry were largely illiterate and produced no literature… Hence we moderns have almost no access to what the peasants were doing and thinking… Hence the FIRST reason for writing this book is to analyze and present some of the movements and leaders among the common people in the late second temple period. A second reading for this study is that Palestinian Jewish history must be critically reexamined now that the old ‘Zealot’ concept has been shown to be a historical fiction.” (Pg. xiii) They continue, “A third reason for this study … pertains to the delineation of these popular movements… It may turn out that the most secure bits of evidence available, prior to the time of Jesus… are not ‘expectations’ found in Jewish literature, written by intellectuals, but the actual concrete leaders and movements among the peasants, datable within two or three decades of Jesus’ own activity.” (Pg. xvi-xvii) They add, “The study is also written with an attempt at sensitivity to the concerns of the peasantry and a corresponding attempt at a critical evaluation of the viewpoint of the ruling and literate groups, whose viewpoint is usually represented in most extant literary sources.” (Pg. xxiii)
They note, “Through the collective memory of the people, eventually in the form of biblical stories, these circumstances of the peasantry (free from overlords and kinds… living under the rule of God in a just and egalitarian social order) became a reference point for subsequent generations, a utopian ideal over against which later subjection to kings and foreign empires was measured and found contrary to the will of God. As later generations of Israelites believed, to judge from those who spoke for them, such as the biblical prophets, the God of Israel remained concerned to keep his people free of foreign bondage and domestic oppression.” (Pg. 6)
They observe, “Social bandits emerge from incidents and circumstances in which what is dictated by the state or local rulers is felt to be unjust or intolerable. Underlying such incidents, however, are general social economic conditions in which many peasants are marginal and vulnerable. It is always a rural phenomenon… Moreover, the social brigand appears only before the poor have reached political consciousness or acquired more effective methods of social agitation… Banditry occurs regularly in areas and periods of administrative inefficiency which allow breathing space for those decreed to be outlaws, whereas a highly controlled and repressive regime may be able to suppress bandits no matter how intolerable the conditions.” (Pg. 49)
They point out, “Herod’s elaborate administration and diplomatic munificence… intensified the burden on peasant producers. Payment to the Romans remained… Under such economic pressures, with too little produced to meet the demands both for subsistence and for surpluses, the peasants were forced to borrow… One would then sink into the ranks of the rural proletariat… or one could become a sharecropping tenant, perhaps on one’s own former parcel of land. Judging from the parables of Jesus… this was exactly what had been happening to the peasantry… large landed estates administered by stewards and farmed by tenants had become familiar… the mechanism by which the land was lost was indebtedness, another phenomenon familiar from Jesus’ parables.” (Pg. 58-59)
They state, “peasant expectations may seem merely to focus on the simple restoration of the legitimate, traditional state of affairs. However, this can have rather revolutionary effects when acted upon … When several brigand groups joined forces in Jerusalem as the ‘Zealots,’ they attempted to organize an egalitarian social order in Jerusalem.” (Pg. 76)
They argue, “The scarcity of the term ‘messiah’ in the Jewish literature of the time does not mean, however, that there was no expectation whatever of an anointed royal leader… there were other images which expressed this particular tradition of expectation, the most prominent of which was a Davidic king… Two points are particularly important. First, the future Davidic king was not necessarily a SON of David… it is difficult to imagine that this ... meant a physical descendant or literal ‘son.’ … Second, many discussions of messianic kingship … have as their keystone the ‘Davidic covenant,’ God’s unconditional promise to David.” (Pg. 91-92)
They summarize, “It thus becomes clear that around the time of Jesus there was a great deal more than a mere expectation of an eschatological king cultivated by literate groups such as the Essenes and others. Indeed, popular royal pretenders and messianic movements were very different from figure expected by the Qumranites and others, even though they were informed by the same general tradition of expectation of an anointed king as God’s agent of liberation.” (Pg. 129-130)
They note, “there is little evidence for oracular prophets from among the Pharisees… The basic reason why the Pharisees were unlikely to produce or be receptive to oracular prophets of the more traditional kind was their firm conviction that the decisive revelation of the will of God had already been given in the Torah. Their principal task… was to interpret and realize the provisions of the law in the life of the community. Inspiration that had previously taken the form of prophetic oracles now was channeled into interpretations of the law and explications of Torah narratives.” (Pg. 158-159)
After explaining three ‘prophetic’ movements mentioned by Josephus, they comment, “These three prophetic movements… all follow the same general patter. A popular prophet with some magnetism and a message collects a large following among the common people in the countryside… Both prophets and followers were apparently acting on the firm conviction that they were about to participate in an act of divine liberation… there is plenty of evidence that a strong apocalyptic mood pervaded the society during this period of acute distress and tension.” (Pg. 170-171)
They say, “it is clear that among the peasantry in the first century C.E. there were two distinct types of prophets… The action prophets… led sizable movements of peasants from the villages of Judea in anticipation of God’s new, eschatological act of liberation… The Roman governors… simply sent the military out to suppress them. The prophets of the other type delivered oracles, either of judgment or deliverance, much as had the classical oracular prophets such as Amos or Jeremiah centuries earlier.” (Pg. 185)
They assert, “The principal historical significance of the Zealots, in the context of the revolt as a whole, was to block the high priestly strategy of negotiating an accommodation with the Romans, thus providing an interlude during which other popular groups could come together in the countryside and mobilize for continuing resistance to the reconquest by the Romans. The actual historical group called the Zealots was thus very different from the synthetic modern (mis)conception of the same name. Historically, it Is totally inappropriate to use the Zealots as a foil (of advocacy of violent rebellion against Rome) for interpretation of Jesus (as a prophet of nonviolence.” (Pg. 240-241)
They acknowledge, “All of these various types of movements occurred during a period of Jewish history in which an apocalyptic spirit was apparently widespread… The evidence for our sense that there was a mood of imminent eschatological expectation in the society generally comes mostly from apocalyptic literature and the Christian Gospels. For a possible apocalyptic spirit among the popular movements and leaders, however, we have little direct evidence… Nevertheless, in a few cases the apocalyptic perspective and motivation can be observed or deduced… Both the epidemic banditry and the Sicarii, moreover, would appear to have been caught up in a heightened anticipation of liberation at the beginning of the Jewish revolt.” (Pg. 250)
They conclude, “The Zealots proper… may provide a useful comparison for some aspects of early Palestinian Christianity, if not for Jesus himself. In an extreme emergency situation… the Zealots attempted to set up an egalitarian social-political-religious order among their number… Violent reimposition of the ‘pax Romana,’ of course, simply ended both the Zealots’ utopian social experiment in Jerusalem and the longer-lived communities of Jesus’ followers in Palestine. This also meant that little survived of the concrete movement started by Jesus in Palestinian Jewish society and that the Christian church developed out of other communities which had by then become well established outside of Jewish Palestine.” (Pg. 258-259)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical background to Jesus and early Christianity.
The authors wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “The Jewish peasantry were largely illiterate and produced no literature… Hence we moderns have almost no access to what the peasants were doing and thinking… Hence the FIRST reason for writing this book is to analyze and present some of the movements and leaders among the common people in the late second temple period. A second reading for this study is that Palestinian Jewish history must be critically reexamined now that the old ‘Zealot’ concept has been shown to be a historical fiction.” (Pg. xiii) They continue, “A third reason for this study … pertains to the delineation of these popular movements… It may turn out that the most secure bits of evidence available, prior to the time of Jesus… are not ‘expectations’ found in Jewish literature, written by intellectuals, but the actual concrete leaders and movements among the peasants, datable within two or three decades of Jesus’ own activity.” (Pg. xvi-xvii) They add, “The study is also written with an attempt at sensitivity to the concerns of the peasantry and a corresponding attempt at a critical evaluation of the viewpoint of the ruling and literate groups, whose viewpoint is usually represented in most extant literary sources.” (Pg. xxiii)
They note, “Through the collective memory of the people, eventually in the form of biblical stories, these circumstances of the peasantry (free from overlords and kinds… living under the rule of God in a just and egalitarian social order) became a reference point for subsequent generations, a utopian ideal over against which later subjection to kings and foreign empires was measured and found contrary to the will of God. As later generations of Israelites believed, to judge from those who spoke for them, such as the biblical prophets, the God of Israel remained concerned to keep his people free of foreign bondage and domestic oppression.” (Pg. 6)
They observe, “Social bandits emerge from incidents and circumstances in which what is dictated by the state or local rulers is felt to be unjust or intolerable. Underlying such incidents, however, are general social economic conditions in which many peasants are marginal and vulnerable. It is always a rural phenomenon… Moreover, the social brigand appears only before the poor have reached political consciousness or acquired more effective methods of social agitation… Banditry occurs regularly in areas and periods of administrative inefficiency which allow breathing space for those decreed to be outlaws, whereas a highly controlled and repressive regime may be able to suppress bandits no matter how intolerable the conditions.” (Pg. 49)
They point out, “Herod’s elaborate administration and diplomatic munificence… intensified the burden on peasant producers. Payment to the Romans remained… Under such economic pressures, with too little produced to meet the demands both for subsistence and for surpluses, the peasants were forced to borrow… One would then sink into the ranks of the rural proletariat… or one could become a sharecropping tenant, perhaps on one’s own former parcel of land. Judging from the parables of Jesus… this was exactly what had been happening to the peasantry… large landed estates administered by stewards and farmed by tenants had become familiar… the mechanism by which the land was lost was indebtedness, another phenomenon familiar from Jesus’ parables.” (Pg. 58-59)
They state, “peasant expectations may seem merely to focus on the simple restoration of the legitimate, traditional state of affairs. However, this can have rather revolutionary effects when acted upon … When several brigand groups joined forces in Jerusalem as the ‘Zealots,’ they attempted to organize an egalitarian social order in Jerusalem.” (Pg. 76)
They argue, “The scarcity of the term ‘messiah’ in the Jewish literature of the time does not mean, however, that there was no expectation whatever of an anointed royal leader… there were other images which expressed this particular tradition of expectation, the most prominent of which was a Davidic king… Two points are particularly important. First, the future Davidic king was not necessarily a SON of David… it is difficult to imagine that this ... meant a physical descendant or literal ‘son.’ … Second, many discussions of messianic kingship … have as their keystone the ‘Davidic covenant,’ God’s unconditional promise to David.” (Pg. 91-92)
They summarize, “It thus becomes clear that around the time of Jesus there was a great deal more than a mere expectation of an eschatological king cultivated by literate groups such as the Essenes and others. Indeed, popular royal pretenders and messianic movements were very different from figure expected by the Qumranites and others, even though they were informed by the same general tradition of expectation of an anointed king as God’s agent of liberation.” (Pg. 129-130)
They note, “there is little evidence for oracular prophets from among the Pharisees… The basic reason why the Pharisees were unlikely to produce or be receptive to oracular prophets of the more traditional kind was their firm conviction that the decisive revelation of the will of God had already been given in the Torah. Their principal task… was to interpret and realize the provisions of the law in the life of the community. Inspiration that had previously taken the form of prophetic oracles now was channeled into interpretations of the law and explications of Torah narratives.” (Pg. 158-159)
After explaining three ‘prophetic’ movements mentioned by Josephus, they comment, “These three prophetic movements… all follow the same general patter. A popular prophet with some magnetism and a message collects a large following among the common people in the countryside… Both prophets and followers were apparently acting on the firm conviction that they were about to participate in an act of divine liberation… there is plenty of evidence that a strong apocalyptic mood pervaded the society during this period of acute distress and tension.” (Pg. 170-171)
They say, “it is clear that among the peasantry in the first century C.E. there were two distinct types of prophets… The action prophets… led sizable movements of peasants from the villages of Judea in anticipation of God’s new, eschatological act of liberation… The Roman governors… simply sent the military out to suppress them. The prophets of the other type delivered oracles, either of judgment or deliverance, much as had the classical oracular prophets such as Amos or Jeremiah centuries earlier.” (Pg. 185)
They assert, “The principal historical significance of the Zealots, in the context of the revolt as a whole, was to block the high priestly strategy of negotiating an accommodation with the Romans, thus providing an interlude during which other popular groups could come together in the countryside and mobilize for continuing resistance to the reconquest by the Romans. The actual historical group called the Zealots was thus very different from the synthetic modern (mis)conception of the same name. Historically, it Is totally inappropriate to use the Zealots as a foil (of advocacy of violent rebellion against Rome) for interpretation of Jesus (as a prophet of nonviolence.” (Pg. 240-241)
They acknowledge, “All of these various types of movements occurred during a period of Jewish history in which an apocalyptic spirit was apparently widespread… The evidence for our sense that there was a mood of imminent eschatological expectation in the society generally comes mostly from apocalyptic literature and the Christian Gospels. For a possible apocalyptic spirit among the popular movements and leaders, however, we have little direct evidence… Nevertheless, in a few cases the apocalyptic perspective and motivation can be observed or deduced… Both the epidemic banditry and the Sicarii, moreover, would appear to have been caught up in a heightened anticipation of liberation at the beginning of the Jewish revolt.” (Pg. 250)
They conclude, “The Zealots proper… may provide a useful comparison for some aspects of early Palestinian Christianity, if not for Jesus himself. In an extreme emergency situation… the Zealots attempted to set up an egalitarian social-political-religious order among their number… Violent reimposition of the ‘pax Romana,’ of course, simply ended both the Zealots’ utopian social experiment in Jerusalem and the longer-lived communities of Jesus’ followers in Palestine. This also meant that little survived of the concrete movement started by Jesus in Palestinian Jewish society and that the Christian church developed out of other communities which had by then become well established outside of Jewish Palestine.” (Pg. 258-259)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical background to Jesus and early Christianity.
January 30, 2024
This book is a generally reliable source of information that draws upon Josephus' writings. It provides readers with insights into the political histories of the first Jewish-Roman wars (66-70 CE) and the times of Herod the Great (39-6 BCE). Josephus himself does not provide much information about the decades in between, and there is limited help available from other sources as well.
However, there is a serious drop in critically scholarship when he made mentions to the historical David and founding of the Israeli kingdom. For example, Dr. Horsley’s sketch on the “HISTORICAL BACKGROUND” of ancient Israel is written with these passages:
> The Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000 B.CE . ) brought a serious threat to Israel's independence. With newly developed military technology, the Philistine warlords could operate effectively in the hill country. During the eleventh century they spread their hegemony from the coastal plain over nearly the whole of Palestine. Israel resisted successfully, but only after the people turned to centralized religiopolitical forms: the charismatic leader David was recognized as the messiah, the anointed of Yahweh. After leading a successful resistance against the Philistines, he eventually conquered the whole of Palestine, including the remaining Canaanite city-states.
David established a monarchic state in Israel, a kingship which was of the imperial type characteristic of the nations which Israel had, up to that point, considered the great threat to its more egalitarian way of life. The monarchy now stood in a mediating position between the Israelites and their God. The previously free tribes of Israel were now ruled from the capital in Jerusalem, the "city of David."
Divine legitimation of the new monarchic order was now centered in the temple, built by David's son Solomon on Zion, the sacred mountain. The monarchy itself was understood as divinely ordained through a prophetic oracle in which God promised to perpetuate the Davidic dynasty forever (see 2 Sam. 7:14). Further, the development of "Israel" into a great nation, as represented by the Davidic monarchy, was seen as the fulfillment of an ancient promise to the great ancestors of the tribes of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.
Yet the Israelite peasantry did not submit to the new monarchical form easily. There were two widespread revolts against the messiah David himself, and at the end of Solomon's lavish rule, ten of the Israelite tribes rebelled and formed a separate, initially less absolutist kingdom in the north, Israel The Davidic dynasty, however, continued to rule the small kingdom of Judah for 400 years.
In the northern kingdom, the Israelite peasantry, or at least significant parts of it, appears never to have resigned itself to monarchic subjection. (pp.6-7)
>
“Iron age” is an archeological term, however, as we can see, Dr. Horsley mixes in the description a great deal of idealized presentation, which lacks credible archeological support. The overwhelming archeological and historical records argues against the existence of a Davidic chieftain that “eventually conquered the whole of Palestine” in the early 10th century BCE, or a lavishing temple and administrative royal center in the middle 10th century BCE. Contemporary diplomatic records and ancient textual layers speak against the existence of biblical King Solomon. And even the historical Solomon could have thrived on as extorting from the Edomite’s copper industry at Timna Valley, it is not enough to account for the rise of the Israeli (Omrides) monarchy, whose economic base was clearly based on the agriculture at Jezreel valley. (Amos 4:4, 5:5, 7:9-10, 13; 8:3 are evidence that the prophet recognized that Beit El and Gilgal were the Yahwist cultic centers, and the “first temple” in Jerusalem had no historical roots before Josiah’s construction. Note that the future hope laid out in Amos 9:11 is merely about reestablishing “the tabernacle of David that is fallen” and that Hos 4:15 includes an injunction against Judeans to go up to Gilgal and Beit El, derogatively called Beth-aven in this verse, betraying a recognized lack of attractive worship center in Judean land.)
And what an audacious statement it is to claim that "in the northern kingdom, the Israelite peasantry, or at least significant parts of it, appears never to have resigned itself to monarchic subjection" based on extant passages of singular prophets such as Amos. Excavated temples, palaces, monuments in the 8th century BCE Israel, and steles by Moabite and Aramean rulers all indicate that the northern kingdom had the ability to mobilize large numbers of forces and support a wealthy upper class (cf. Amos 5:3, 11; 6:4-8). Additionally, there were no signs of local peasant revolts, for if there was really widespread unpopularity of the monarchy among the peasantry, Amos and Hosea did not say anything. Even Elijah’s and Elisha’s accounts made it clear that the intellectual or "civil" critique of the monarchy was a minor voice unable to harness the social resentment against political injustice.
The mistreatment in this part of history leads Dr. Horsley to state that the messianic expectation were merely ‘dormant’ given his recognition that (p.99, 101, 106, 131, ) ‘there is little or no evidence for a lively expectation of a messiah during the period of Persian and Hellenistic domination’ (p.101).
His answer to the remaining “question of why there was this resurgence of expectations of an eschatological king in the literature of the Hasmonean period, after such expectations had apparently lain dormant for centuries” is the oppression, but this distorts the real scholarly issue. The Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian dynasty may just be analogous to the northern kingdom in their pretentions, but the Iron Age II b peasants, who should have had a chronologically closer connection and fresher memory to ‘Apiru (Hebrew) liberation and the ‘Apiru-turned-King David, showed no such messianic agitations or even memories.
As a result, I am largely unconvinced by 's explanation for the emergence of popular messianism. I could write on and on, but here I will just leave the short answer: popular messianism is totally a new development in public theology. It is influenced by Hellenistic thoughts and Persian imperial political system, but foremost as a rivalling response to the increasingly unpopular and illegitimate Hasmonaean hierocracy. Originally, it was thought that the priestly messiah must take precedence (to teach and guide the nation in its right path) over the military messiah (to help drive out foreign ruling presence only). This view is represented in the Qumran scrolls and the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon. An alternative religiosity that is not centered around the temple for divine mediation was the prerequisite for popular messianism (since noble and choice blood lineage is a necessary condition for legitimacy in high priesthood, popular anointing can confer no legitimacy if this concept of priestly messiah was held firm).
I give 4 star to this book still. I found Dr. Horsley to be helping me to pick up Josephus’ writing faster for events around the turn of the common era. I am in agreement with some reviewers that Dr. Horsley does not appear to be critically examining Josephus’ claims. But it is okay for me because if I encountered this book when I was already reading Josephus’ writing, and I read it critically anyway.
However, there is a serious drop in critically scholarship when he made mentions to the historical David and founding of the Israeli kingdom. For example, Dr. Horsley’s sketch on the “HISTORICAL BACKGROUND” of ancient Israel is written with these passages:
> The Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000 B.CE . ) brought a serious threat to Israel's independence. With newly developed military technology, the Philistine warlords could operate effectively in the hill country. During the eleventh century they spread their hegemony from the coastal plain over nearly the whole of Palestine. Israel resisted successfully, but only after the people turned to centralized religiopolitical forms: the charismatic leader David was recognized as the messiah, the anointed of Yahweh. After leading a successful resistance against the Philistines, he eventually conquered the whole of Palestine, including the remaining Canaanite city-states.
David established a monarchic state in Israel, a kingship which was of the imperial type characteristic of the nations which Israel had, up to that point, considered the great threat to its more egalitarian way of life. The monarchy now stood in a mediating position between the Israelites and their God. The previously free tribes of Israel were now ruled from the capital in Jerusalem, the "city of David."
Divine legitimation of the new monarchic order was now centered in the temple, built by David's son Solomon on Zion, the sacred mountain. The monarchy itself was understood as divinely ordained through a prophetic oracle in which God promised to perpetuate the Davidic dynasty forever (see 2 Sam. 7:14). Further, the development of "Israel" into a great nation, as represented by the Davidic monarchy, was seen as the fulfillment of an ancient promise to the great ancestors of the tribes of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.
Yet the Israelite peasantry did not submit to the new monarchical form easily. There were two widespread revolts against the messiah David himself, and at the end of Solomon's lavish rule, ten of the Israelite tribes rebelled and formed a separate, initially less absolutist kingdom in the north, Israel The Davidic dynasty, however, continued to rule the small kingdom of Judah for 400 years.
In the northern kingdom, the Israelite peasantry, or at least significant parts of it, appears never to have resigned itself to monarchic subjection. (pp.6-7)
>
“Iron age” is an archeological term, however, as we can see, Dr. Horsley mixes in the description a great deal of idealized presentation, which lacks credible archeological support. The overwhelming archeological and historical records argues against the existence of a Davidic chieftain that “eventually conquered the whole of Palestine” in the early 10th century BCE, or a lavishing temple and administrative royal center in the middle 10th century BCE. Contemporary diplomatic records and ancient textual layers speak against the existence of biblical King Solomon. And even the historical Solomon could have thrived on as extorting from the Edomite’s copper industry at Timna Valley, it is not enough to account for the rise of the Israeli (Omrides) monarchy, whose economic base was clearly based on the agriculture at Jezreel valley. (Amos 4:4, 5:5, 7:9-10, 13; 8:3 are evidence that the prophet recognized that Beit El and Gilgal were the Yahwist cultic centers, and the “first temple” in Jerusalem had no historical roots before Josiah’s construction. Note that the future hope laid out in Amos 9:11 is merely about reestablishing “the tabernacle of David that is fallen” and that Hos 4:15 includes an injunction against Judeans to go up to Gilgal and Beit El, derogatively called Beth-aven in this verse, betraying a recognized lack of attractive worship center in Judean land.)
And what an audacious statement it is to claim that "in the northern kingdom, the Israelite peasantry, or at least significant parts of it, appears never to have resigned itself to monarchic subjection" based on extant passages of singular prophets such as Amos. Excavated temples, palaces, monuments in the 8th century BCE Israel, and steles by Moabite and Aramean rulers all indicate that the northern kingdom had the ability to mobilize large numbers of forces and support a wealthy upper class (cf. Amos 5:3, 11; 6:4-8). Additionally, there were no signs of local peasant revolts, for if there was really widespread unpopularity of the monarchy among the peasantry, Amos and Hosea did not say anything. Even Elijah’s and Elisha’s accounts made it clear that the intellectual or "civil" critique of the monarchy was a minor voice unable to harness the social resentment against political injustice.
The mistreatment in this part of history leads Dr. Horsley to state that the messianic expectation were merely ‘dormant’ given his recognition that (p.99, 101, 106, 131, ) ‘there is little or no evidence for a lively expectation of a messiah during the period of Persian and Hellenistic domination’ (p.101).
His answer to the remaining “question of why there was this resurgence of expectations of an eschatological king in the literature of the Hasmonean period, after such expectations had apparently lain dormant for centuries” is the oppression, but this distorts the real scholarly issue. The Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian dynasty may just be analogous to the northern kingdom in their pretentions, but the Iron Age II b peasants, who should have had a chronologically closer connection and fresher memory to ‘Apiru (Hebrew) liberation and the ‘Apiru-turned-King David, showed no such messianic agitations or even memories.
As a result, I am largely unconvinced by 's explanation for the emergence of popular messianism. I could write on and on, but here I will just leave the short answer: popular messianism is totally a new development in public theology. It is influenced by Hellenistic thoughts and Persian imperial political system, but foremost as a rivalling response to the increasingly unpopular and illegitimate Hasmonaean hierocracy. Originally, it was thought that the priestly messiah must take precedence (to teach and guide the nation in its right path) over the military messiah (to help drive out foreign ruling presence only). This view is represented in the Qumran scrolls and the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon. An alternative religiosity that is not centered around the temple for divine mediation was the prerequisite for popular messianism (since noble and choice blood lineage is a necessary condition for legitimacy in high priesthood, popular anointing can confer no legitimacy if this concept of priestly messiah was held firm).
I give 4 star to this book still. I found Dr. Horsley to be helping me to pick up Josephus’ writing faster for events around the turn of the common era. I am in agreement with some reviewers that Dr. Horsley does not appear to be critically examining Josephus’ claims. But it is okay for me because if I encountered this book when I was already reading Josephus’ writing, and I read it critically anyway.
December 28, 2013
A fascinating book. It shines a light on the dark period surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ when the Jews so longed for a political messiah. Many of the sayings and actions of Jesus are made clearer in light of this background. I recommend reading in conjunction with the books by Prof. NT Wright, especially Jesus and the Victory of God.
July 8, 2019
A quite readable work that challenges traditional understandings of the Jewish sects and movements in the first century. Horsley does not deal with Jewish messianism as much as he could have, but he does precisely delineate the various revolutionary groups from one another (esp. separating Zealots and Sicarii). These groups were not as theologically motivated as some assume and tend to be the products of social-economic repression and in reaction to the situations of the day. Horsley sees many of the conditions as the result of a rift between the populace and the Jewish elite, something that may be supported in the Gospels. But he goes on to suggest that there was an ideological difference between these two groups (which may or may not be entirely the case). A good read and provides some good context for the Gospels that students will find useful.
February 3, 2020
Terrific book taking a very interesting class perspective and piecing together the peasant side of things. Accessible, learned, and easily read. I especially thought the final chapter, distinguishing the Zealots proper from Fourth Philosophy and the Sicarii, was excellent. For both laymen or specialists, easily. If you like this time period and you're interested in popular movements, especially among the overlooked "crowd", then you'll probably enjoy this read.
March 15, 2018
Helpful resource in understanding the late Second Temple period. However, Horsley does rely a bit too much on speculation concerning some topics and assumes too often that the primary motivation in uprisings, messianic movements, and the like was purely economical rather than religious.
December 28, 2021
A good look at this period of time
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews