Customer Reviews

Jesus and the Zealots : A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Samuel George Frederick Brandon (1907-1971) was a British scholar and professor of comparative religion in the University of Manchester. This 1967 book (he wrote a "sequel" of sorts, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth) advances the very controversial thesis that Jesus was a 1st century "revolutionary" figure, who was executed for sedition.

Brandon notes that the apostle Simon was a member (or former member) of the Jewish revolutionary movement called the Zealots (see Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13), and that this suggests that Jesus had an appeal for members of such revolutionary movements. He argues that the early church (as illustrated by the gospel of Mark, for example) tried to suppress this information, turning the revolutionary Jesus into the "pacific Christ."

Brandon attributes Jesus' death to his having attacked the "sacerdotal aristocracy" of the Jews by his "cleansing of the Temple," which led to him being executed by the Romans (who Jesus wanted to expel from Palestine) as a political rebel. Brandon suggests a connection between Jesus and the "insurrection" of Barabbas' (who was freed by Pilate, rather than Jesus) mentioned in Mark 15:7, as well.

He summarizes (pg. 218), "Christians were as fervently concerned as the Zealots for the salvation of Israel, which would end the domination of heathen Rome. They differed from them, primarily, in believing that a prophet, who had died a martyr's death at the hands of the Romans, had been raised from the dead by God and would return as the Messiah to redeem Israel. They had found scriptural warranty for this peculiar belief; but they did not emphasize the significance of the death of Jesus beyond maintaining that he had died as a martyr for Israel, owing to the people's blindness and obduracy to his message. The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans was no more embarrassing to the Jewish Christians than were the Roman executions of Judas of Galilee and his sons to the Zealots. Death at the hands of hated oppressors of Israel was honorable..."

While modern Jesus scholars are more cognizant about the "political" reasons for the Roman execution of Jesus (they wouldn't crucify someone for healing someone on the Sabbath, for example), Brandon's thesis has perhaps not held up that well over the years (remember that it was written during the height of the "student rebellions" of the '60s); and he ignores possibilities such as that Simon may have joined up with Jesus because Simon had REJECTED the "political" solution offered by the Zealots.

At any rate, there is some interesting historical information about the Zealot movement, and this is a very interesting book.

This is a good book but besides being long winded and redundant, it falls short of the mark.

I agree with the main thesis of this book, that Jesus and the Jersusalem community headed by James shared the same ultimate aspirations as the Zealots; the restoration of the Kingdom of God to Israel and the end of Roman rule. That Jesus' disciples believed he was the Messiah of Israel who would return to establish the Kingdom in Israel and drive out the Romans is another point I agree with.

The author makes a good point that Jesus was crucified for his claim of being the King of the Jews, that he was probably crucified between two other revolutionaries, and that his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and demonstration in the Temple had popular backing. The idea that Pontius Pilate would be so stupid and cowed by the Priest to release Bar Abbas and execute an innocent Jesus is also good.

However, Jesus, like Paul, believed the coming of the Kingdom would be a cosmic, supernatural event. I hardly think he was sitting at the right hand of God to return as simply a local national leader. This is clearly illustrated in the book f Revelation which was very subversive in its own rite. Jesus' talking about the Kingdom being taken by force and teaching his disciples not to return evil for evil is a veiled criticism of the Zealot movement. Jesus' "rendering unto Caesar" is better understood that Caesar's money had no value in the Kingdom because that Kingdom would soon be obsolete. (Bart Ehrman's "Jesus: The Apocalyptic Prophet..." is much more credible than this book).

Graham Stanton, in his excellent book "Gospel Truth?..." does an excellent critique of this book which he claims was embraced by political activists in the 60's. Jesus' teaching love of enemies and acceptance of tax collectors goes back to the Q sayings which antedate the gospels. In addition, these teachings go against the grain of organized religion and could not have been made up. In addition, the fact that only Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane and not by Roman soldiers is proof that the Romans did not percieve him as a threat until after he was turned over to them and made his own messianic confession.

Brandon makes a crucial point in his own book which he fails to elaborate on because it would steer his readers away from his main thesis. This is the point which proves beyond a doubt that neither Jesus not the Jerusalem community were aligned with the Zealot movement, even thought they had the same aspiration. The fact that the Jerusalem community was allowed to thrive at least for a while could not have happened if they had ever espoused a violent political revolution against Rome. While the Hellenistic faction was driven out of Jersusalem by the High Priests (using Saul of Tarsus) due to their radical stance againt the Temple (see my review of Marcel Simon's "St. Stephen and the Hellenists"), James and the other apostles were allowed to stay and openly worship in the Temple right under the noses of Roman soldiers. In contrast, the Zealots hid out in caves and had to enter Jerusalem under cloak and dagger.