The Dagger Men
The latest news from Israel is all about stabbings of Jews by Palestinians. The completely random nature of these attacks have led ordinary Israelis to arm themselves with anything from stun-guns to rolling pins, just in case someone lunges at them with a knife. Soldiers have been attacked and even killed as they guard checkpoints - which some might think a legitimate target - but in another attack a grandmother was stabbed as she did her weekly shopping in a supermarket. I'm delighted to say that the attacker was killed, but no doubt his friends and relatives are hailing him as a courageous "shahid" or "martyr".
Now please don't misunderstand me; I condemn all sorts of violence and particularly when it is directed at women, children and the aged, but nonetheless I read about these attacks with a certain sardonic curl to my lips. As the old saying has it, "what goes round comes round" and there was a time when it was Jews who were wielding the daggers and being hailed as martyrs by their compatriots.
There is some dispute over when these "dagger men" first appeared. Josephus seems to indicate that they were a new phenomenon during the procuratorship of Felix, who ruled over Judea AD 52-60.
There sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers (sicae) under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while everybody expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.
Josephus, Wars of the Jews 13:3
However we know from other sources that there were agitators called "sicarii" as far back as the time of Quirinius, who was governor when Jesus was born. On the whole, the populace supported these assassins - it was only those who were wealthy or who collaborated with the Romans who lived in a state of fear as Josephus describes.
Rather like the deluded Muslims in Iraq, who welcomed Daesh when it first appeared and now long for deliverance from its blood-thirsty tyranny, so the common Jews admired the Sicarii right up until the time when the Sicarii managed to get control of Jerusalem. Under their leaders, Menahem be Yahuda and Eleazar ben Ya'ir, the Sicarii instituted a reign of terror, slaughtering anyone who might breathe a word of discontent.
According to the Talmud, the Sicarii destroyed the stocks of food in Jerusalem in order to force the population to fight against the Romans instead of negotiating peace. The logic of this escapes me - I would have thought that lack of food would make the people less ready to stand a siege - but one does not look for logic in terrorists.
As reported by Josephus, the situation grew so bad that eventually the population of Jerusalem rebelled against the Sicarii and besieged them in the temple while the Romans laid siege to the city outside the walls. In the end the Sicarii, better armed and somewhat better organised, managed to defeat the poplace and took the usual reprisals, but the internicene strife did weaken them and, combined with their own inability to cooperate with the Zealots, the other powerful faction in Jerusalem, led to an earlier end to the siege than might otherwise have been the case.
The interesting thing is that Jesus had some of these religious fanatics among His disciples.
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
Luke 6:12-16
It is widely recognised that Simon, nicknamed "Zelotes", was actually a Zealot. In fact, the New International Version of the Bible actually translates it as "Simon who was called the Zealot". We can hope that by the time Jesus called Simon, he was very much an ex-zealot and no longer went around advocating violent rebellion against the Romans, but the name seems to have stuck, for in the Book of Acts, in the list of those present in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost, "Simon Zelotes" is named.
What is less well-known is that there was a dagger-man among the disciples. The name "Iscariot" is a puzzle to Bible scholars. The obvious explanation is that it is a reference to the place from which Judas came - and the most usual suggestion is a place called Kerioth, which has been identified with the ruins of el-Kureitein, about ten miles south of Hebron.
The trouble is that while not unknown, it was not a common way to designate people. King David's father, Jesse, was known as "the Bethlehemite", but other people who were associated with particular localities did not take them as patronymics. Jeremiah, for instance, was proudly linked with Anathoth, but he was never known as "the Anathothite".
Other suggestions, which attempt to link the name postumously with the events of Judas' life are even less convincing. "Liar", "the red" (as in blood), "betrayer", or "choked" (a reference to his death by hanging) have all been advanced and the arguments are less than persuasive.
Which brings us to the obvious solution - the Sicarii. The only objection to this idea is the assertion that the sicarii did not come into existence until nearly thirty years after Jesus lived and died.
Josephus' description could be taken as meaning that the sicarii "sprang up" during the time of Felix, but it could also mean that they "sprang up in Jerusalem" - that is, that previously they had flourished in the countryside and in other towns, but now, with the decline in Roman power associated with Felix, they were able to gain a toe-hold in the capital, one which they later exploited to gain power.
Felix was the brother of Pallas, a Greek freedman who gained considerable influence during the reign of Claudius but who was eventually dismissed from power by Nero and killed by him in AD 63. Felix has gone down in history as cruel and licentious and above all, greedy for bribes. Anyone accused of a crime could buy himself off and the inevitable result was that crime and disorder greatly increased in Judea.
St Paul was arrested in Jerusalem while Felix was procurator and the local military commander, who doubtless knew on which side his bread was buttered, promptly transferred Paul to Caesarea and Felix - and Felix kept him in prison. As the book of Acts records,
He was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.
Acts 23:26
What is strange is that when Jesus was brought before Pilate by the priests, who charged that He promoted rebellion against the Romans, they never mentioned these dubious associates. Even if Judas was not a Sicarus, the priests never showed themselves reluctant to cast mud and the mere suggestion would have been damning in Pilate's eyes. In any case, Simon the Zealot was certainly an member - or ex-member - of another anti-Roman faction and his name could have been mentioned to strengthen the case against Jesus.
The fact was that the priestly caste were themselves implicated in the anti-Roman movement. Either through fear of being next on the hit list or from sympathy, the Jewish establishment was less than thorough in its attempts to suppress violent resistance to the Romans. Like Judas, once the priests realised that Jesus was not about to raise the standard of revolt, they had no use for Him. Judas betrayed Him and the priests killed Him.
Some years ago, when we were excavating at Maresha, our Israeli liason mentioned that the hills beside the road from Jerusalem were riddled with caves used by the Zealots to ambush and attack anyone using the road. I expressed interest and he took me to see them; he didn't mention that we would need a torch, so we were only able to penetrate the outer chambers of these caves, but he had explored them on previous occasions and reported that they ran far back into the hills and could hold a substantial body of men ready for an attack, or provide an easily defensible hiding place after the attack. He spoke with admiration of their courage and zeal for Jewish independence.
Not far away, of course, is the main road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, along which lie the remains of Jewish trucks ambushed by Arab fighters during the 1948 war. These men were equally courageous and equally zealous for indepence, but somehow they did not evoke the same admiration in our Jewish friend.
I make no attempt to trace the origins of the latest round of violence; basically both sides seek to provoke the other, either in the hope of gaining some advantage or of winning some sort of propaganda battle. Each is as bad as the other; Arabs stab grandmothers, Jews shoot children, Arabs set fire to Jewish forests, Jews set fire to Arab olive groves, and so it goes on.
Judas the Sicarus hung himself when his attempt to provoke Jesus into open resistance to Rome backfired. Simon the Zealot dropped into obscurity, with church tradition thoroughly divided over his eventual fate. Most tales claim that he died a martyr for Christ but there is no unanimity over where and when. Some place his death in Persia, others in Armenia and still others claim that he visited England and was martyred in Caistor, Lincolnshire. There is even a theory that he went back to his Zealot friends and perished in the siege of Jerusalem - but I doubt it.
It would seem that once a terrorist always a terrorist - and not even close acquaintance with Christ was able to redeem Judas - a fact which does not augur well for the future of either Israel or Palestine. It would indeed seem that "those who take the sword will perish by the sword" and that Jesus' advice to "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" may have very practical applications.
© Kendall K. Down 2015
