Josephus divided the Judaism of his day into four main philosophies: Pharisees, Zealots, Sadducees, and Essenes. In Ant. 18:23 he writes regarding the Zealots,
“But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kind of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord…”[1]
The Zealots were Pharisees who advocated violent resistance against anyone who would claim to be a Ruler or Lord who was not Israel’s God. Josephus is not fond of the Zealots. He blames them for many of the terrible things that came upon the Jews as resistance to Rome increased. He says in 18:4b-5 that Judas and those with him that they, “…became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty: as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”[2] In other words, according to Judas, there motives were not pure, but they desired to be made famous by their actions. In 18:6-10 the Zealots are depicted as a riotous bunch whose, “…sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemy’s fire.”[3]
Joan E. Taylor makes an intriguing observation in The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism about Paul. She writes,
“Interestingly, when the apostle Paul refers to his ‘former life in Judaism’ (Gal. 1:13-14), he professes to have been extremely zealous (ζηλωτὴς) for the traditions of his ancestors. In Phil. 3:5-6 he describes himself in terms of the Law as a Pharisee and in terms of zeal (ζῆλος) as a persecutor of the Church. In other words, his zeal manifested itself in action, in his case the action of persecuting those who claimed that the Messiah had already come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.”[4]
If the Zealots were Pharisees who advocated active, violent resistance to Rome, and if Paul was a Pharisee known for his violence against early disciples of Jesus, then it may follow that Paul was a Zealot. This provides for an interesting contrast with some of Paul’s fellow Pharisees. In Acts 5:34-39 we find Gamaliel, a Pharisee who was influential over his contemporaries as well as later generations (who is said to have been Paul’s teacher in Acts 22:3), addressing a Sanhedrin, warning against attacking the apostles. He is presented as saying,
“Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men.
“For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
“After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.
“So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” [5]
Now, it is not impossible to validate the historicity of this speech, nor can we separate Gamliel’s words from his Lukan depiction, but we do see that he is remembered as a moderate, cautious Pharisee. This places him in contrast with Paul, a violent Pharisee. Whether Paul was of the “fourth philosophy” before his “Damascus Road” conversion, as it is called, I do not know, but he seems to fit the description.
[1] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
[2] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
[3] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
[4] Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 237.
[5] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Ac 5:35–39 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
the archives near Emmaus 
N.T. Wright (I think it was) suggested that Paul styled himself after the zealousness of Phineas, the zealous man from Torah, popular in second temple literature for his violent opposition to paganization within the Jewish community. Paul’s zealousness would then be understood not as a reaction to Christians submitting to some lord other than God, but a reaction to Jews (followers of Jesus) corrupting other Jews (possibly by the inclusion of unclean Gentiles into their community).
The logic is reasonable. If true, what I find interesting is the idea that Saul a zealot studied under Gamaliel a moderate. One would think that oil would stick with oil, and water with water.
A few questions…
Would Pilate have tolerated the High Priest to ‘hire’ a Zealot as his traveling prosecutor?
What was the name of Saul’s office as agent of the Sanhedrin/High Priest?
What are the precedents and antecedents for Saul’s role?
What were the relationships between Zealots and Sadducees and Pharisees?
Mark:
I think I have heard Wright say something like that, and I think you are correct that Paul wouldn’t have interpreted the Christians as worshiping another deity, but as you said corrupting Israel by promoting someone he considered to be a pseudo-messiah.
Andrew:
He does seem to be nothing like his teacher, huh?
Rick:
1. I don’t know how Pilate would have addressed it. The High Priest did have some authority to make decisions regarding Israel’s Law, but some decisions (seemingly capital punishment in some cases) appear to have been the type of decision to be made by Rome. Then again, Pilate didn’t reside in Jerusalem most of the time, so who knows how much he micro-managed from Caesarea. Also, Paul’s conversion is dated by many to happen near the end of Pilate’s term as Prefect, so maybe other matters preoccupied him that he saw as more important than how the Jews handled their non-militant sectarians.
2. I don’t know.
3. I don’t know.
4. It appears that Zealots, according to Josephus (as seen in the quote above), affirmed all the Pharisees affirmed, except they advocated violent revolt while most Pharisees did not or were less open about it. Apparently, this would cause them to differ from Sadducees in areas related to how to relate to Rome, whether there was a resurrection of the dead, whether there were authoritative books other that the Torah of Moses, whether there were angels, ghosts, and other non-physical agents, and so forth.
Just a quick point of distinction: Judah of Gamla, whom Josephus is speaking of, is the founder the Sicarii and not the Zealots—the sicarii are also those who end up at Masada. In fact, it appears that the 4th philosophy, as understood by J. Price [The Zealots, EJ, vol 21], are the Sicarii and not the Zealots. The Zealots and the Sicarii are similar, but they are different and the differences are significant. Paul would have, in my opinion, most definitely not been a Sicarii.
Regarding, Paul’s zealotry. I think it is an interesting question. I would be careful basing it simply on linguistic descriptors used by Paul for himself, especially since the term zealous is utilized elsewhere for those who are coming to faith in Jesus and continue to observe the Law (Acts 21:20; 1Pet 3:13; 2 Pet 3:14). Clearly, they were not entering a school to launch an offensive against Roman occupation. Furthermore, Paul, at least as we have him described on our texts, lacks the penchant to want to kick out Rome by force, which is key to both schools.
On the other hand, if indeed the Fourth Philosophy are the Sicarii—which were centered in the Galilee—then they have a connection with the Pharisees, while the Zealots appear to be based in Jerusalem and have a connection with the priesthood. If this is the case, it is interesting that Paul goes to the priesthood for letters to persecute THE WAY.
Indeed, Paul is an interesting figure. He describes himself as zealous, turns to the priesthood, studied as a Pharisee under Gamaliel, and used distinctly sectarian language (e.g., works of the law, Belial). Don’t have him figured out just yet but this is still an interesting question.
AJCO:
Thank you for the helpful insights. I see that Josephus discusses the Sicarii quite a bit. Does he convolute them with the Zealots or does he seem to recognize the distinction?
It appears that in Judean War the Sicarii and the Zealots have a bit of confluence, though Josephus makes clear that those that end up in the Masada are the Sicarii and not the Zealots. Josephus does seem to not find a need to always distinguish the Sicarii in War, as he does in Antiquities, and he dislikes them even more than he dislikes the Zealots.
-Jeff Garcia
I wonder if the times when he lacks distinction have to do with an effort to lump “them” together? It seems to be part of his apologetic to defend the Jewish people as a whole before his Roman audience.
I think AJCO/Jeff Garcia is correct in cautioning against reading too much Zealotism into Saul’s ‘zealousness’. His “all things to all men” style seems to have let him assume whatever background he needed to go forward with his current audience. This is probably the part of him that turns me off most. But his flexibility was what he needed to win over differing people, and therefore most likely reflects Dr. Leander Keck’s position that he cut corners to get to an immediate minimal fellowship of Gentiles with Jews. I take comfort in the New Perspective, but at the same time I am leery of 20th/21st century minds wanting to make him into what we want him to have been.
To me it’s pretty obvious that he wasn’t a Zealot. They were concerned with the Land, and Paul went elsewhere to proselytize. I think that despite his Gamalielite background, the zealous Saul the enforcer was a Shammaite Pharisee and that the post-Damascus Road zealous messianic Saul/Paul the apostle had returned to being a Hillelite/Gamalielite Pharisee. He seems to have been one who reveled in being corrected, so I lean toward the self-description of ‘zealous’ as (slyly) reflecting his conversion from zealous Shammaism to zealous Hillelism.
Rick:
It may be that we should distance Paul from the Zealots (and the Sicarii), but some of the things you observe such as being “all things to all people” and proselytizing those outside the Land may be attributed more to his conversion that his pre-conversion state of being.
I think he was equally as zealous post-Damascus Road as before. In both cases, he went “out” to bring people “in”. It doesn’t appear to me that his personality changed that much pre-DR vs post-DR, just as I said earlier he was corrected. I don’t think there was any way that Pilate would have tolerated the High Priest, whom he was able to depose (and able to appoint another), hiring a Zealot in such a high profile position. (Yet… wasn’t it Josephus though, that said some in the lower rungs of the Temple priesthood were somewhat radical? If so, that very interestingly shows that zealous men of several persuasions were active in several capacities in Jerusalem. Brent Kinman and Israel Drapkin said that the Roman veneer over the Land was very thin indeed, so I assume the Jewish establishment had some wiggle room in whom of which philosophical persuasion did what.) I don’t think he was a traditional Zealot post-Damascus Road as his traveling outside the Land to proselytize most likely was a ‘sin’ to Zealots. So I think it can be fairly conclusively ruled out he wasn’t a Zealot pre-DR, and ruled out with more confidence post-DR.
The bottom line to me is that the testimony of Paul and the writings of Josephus were both self-serving and agenda-driven when speaking of their ‘former lives’. In one instance, Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. That implied a certain zealousness. In another instance, he was arguing the logic for worshiping Yahweh to the men of Mars Hill. He probably would have failed more spectacularly had he had have been very zealous. Since Josephus had been a rebel commander and became a Jewish apologist after surrendering, he was able to characterize himself and the varieties of Jewish nationalists in whichever way benefited his desired outcome more. Paul and Josephus were both honest that that was what they were doing!
Rick, why do you believe the testimony of Paul was self-serving?
Paul’s decision to go to Damascus is quite curious. It does seem to be a bit out of the way. As concerns his concern for the Land would it be possible that S/Paul felt that the Land should consist of more than the Roman ruled Judea, but that it should include a larger section of land, even as much as was said to be ruled by Solomon? If so, would Damascus be within range for him?
It’s a good question, besides S/Paul’s loyalty to his Israelite heritage, and Pharisee training, was Paul a faithful (meaning loyal) Roman before his conversion? Has anyone done a study on S/Paul’s pre-conversion attitude to Rome. Is there sufficient record for such a study to be meaningful?
I also ponder, why Paul only held the coats in the stone of Stephen? I’m glad he did no more, but was he too young to participate, was there a convention in place that determined who ‘got to hold the coats’. Though Paul admits he approved of it, why did he cast no stone?
Considering the source of Luke and 10 letters of Paul was Marcion maybe one should continually test the character of Paul. Considering the ascension in Luke then in Acts which was not mentioned in the collection maybe Acts was actually the end of Luke condensing the ascension leaving that as the ending then expanding Acts based upon letters brought to Rome by Marcion starting with the conversion of Paul on a road to a place not under Roman or the High priest authority. As late as the beginning of 3rd century the account of Paul’ claim as an apostle was denied by Tertullian as fabrication of Marcion. Maybe we should be careful creating doctrines around anything that contradicts the actions of Yahshua . After all Marcion called his Jesus chrestos(good one ) of which in Codex Sinaiticus the the word for christian was changed from chrestian. Paul’s Christos fits in very well with Marcion’s Chrestos who the Chrestos God sent to save mankind from the evil god who gave the law to Israel.
Andrew,
The testimony of Paul was self-serving in not a bad way. He went (in)to his audience, becoming all things to all people meant he had to identify with them and therefore he had to define himself for each situation.
Brian,
Lawrence Schiffman holds to the possibility that “Damascus” was actually Qumran.
Robert,
I find your Marcion-like comments offensive, especially the last sentence.
Really? Qumran? Do you remember why he says this?
Rick
Very sorry it offended you but from my research the probability is way too high to ignore but you can research for yourself.
.
Per Schiffman:
“We find all kinds of pseudonyms for actual personages, yet almost never a personal name that would allow a definite identification. The Jewish sects of the day are never mentioned by name even though we see numerous references to them designated with code words in the sectarian texts. Why then should we fall into the trap of taking place names literally? Rather it is more likely that ‘Damascus’ is a code word for Qumran…. The New Testament pictures Paul receiving a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6). It is likely that the symbolic meaning of Damascus as an eschatological stopover would have led to its use here. Indeed, even in Amos 5:27 it is connected with the destruction of syncretist Israelites — those who had mixed worship of the God of Israel with pagan ways — in the End of Days.
“In addition, we should mention the suggestion that Damascus was actually at one time the name of the toparchy (administrative district) in which Qumran was situated. This suggestion assumes that Qumran, even though it is located on the western shore of the Dead Sea, was at one time part of the same administrative unit as Damascus and could, therefore, bear its name.”
— Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect” in Biblical Archaeologist, 58(1), March 1995
These 2 passages makes that theory unbiblical even though they contradict each other.
But if it was true it would make story historically possible atleast
2 Corinthians 11: 32-33
“When I was in Damascus, the commissioner of King Aretas kept the city under observation so as to have me arrested; and I was let down in a basket, through a window in the wall, and so escaped his clutches.”
Acts 22-25
But Saul grew more and more forceful, and silenced the Jews of Damascus with his cogent proofs that Jesus was the Messiah. As the days mounted up, the Jews hatched a plot against his life; but their plans became known to Saul. They kept watch on the city gates day and night so that they might murder him; but his converts took him one night and let him down by the wall, lowering him in a basket.
It does seem Paul could have been a Zealot, though unlikely. Isn’t it pretty clear that the entire focus of the Zealots was liberation from foreign occupation/control? (Mainly via Josephus, who indeed is far from unbiased. But it seems to make sense.) Paul MAY have changed his attitude toward Rome post-conversion… we don’t know; but I don’t think persecuting one Jewish sect (Jesus followers) which may at most have been tolerant of Roman rule (though honoring a higher kingdom) would qualify one as a Zealot by definitions of their time.
It IS interesting that Luke clearly appears to disguise the fact that the “other” Simon was “the Zealot” in one or more (don’t recall which) other gospels. Not a good association for early Christians to have known soon after the war… might relate to Paul’s situation, too.