Talk:Zealots

message: Zealotry denotes zeal in excess on behalf of God. The original Zealots were a Jewish political movement in the 1st century AD which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the country by force of arms during the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). When the Romans introduced the imperial cult, the Jews had rebelled and been put down.  The Zealots continued to oppose the Romans, on the grounds that Israel belonged only to a Jewish king descended from David, see Jewish Messiah.  [Characterizing this action as rebellion would seem to coincide with a Roman point of view  (although it is possible that the earlier article writer is one of those who uses the word rebel in the fairly modern (and thoroughly untraditional) fashion as having positive connotations.  From the Zealots point of view they would be rightfully expelling a wicked occupying power in accordance with the will of God, the ultimate authority.  Furthermore, the term rebel implies a lack of right, and from a neutral point of view, I don't see how one can characterize their war against Rome at all— in terms of right and wrong.  Only in terms (lacking not-so-subtle moral connotations) of what is believed about the participants in the war and their beliefs can this event be described neutrally.]
Josephus' Jewish Antiquities book 18 states that there were three main Jewish sects at this time, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Zealots were a "fourth sect", founded by Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala) and Zadok the Pharisee in the year 6 against Quirinius' tax reform, shortly after the Roman state declared what had most recently been the territory of the tribe of Judah a Roman Province, and that they "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." (18.1.6)  According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots: "Following Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6), most writers consider that the Zealots were a so-called fourth party founded by Judas the Galilean (see Grätz, "Gesch." iii. 252, 259; Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., i. 3, 486). This view is contradicted, however, by the fact that Hezekiah, the father of Judas the Galilean, had an organized band of so-called "robbers" which made war against the Idumean Herod ("B. J." i. 10, § 5; "Ant." xiv. 9, § 2), and also by the fact that the system of religious and political murders practised by the Zealots was in existence during the reign of Herod, if not long before (see below)."
The Zealots had the leading role in the Jewish Revolt of 66. They succeeded in taking over Jerusalem, and kept control of it until 70, when the son of Roman emperor Vespasian, Titus Flavius, retook the city and destroyed Herod's Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.
The Zealots objected to Roman rulership and sought to violently eradicate it; Zealots engaged in violence were called the Sicarii. They raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered collaborators, they also urged Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for their religiopolitical cause. Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction.
According to Josephus, the Zealots followed John of Gischala, who had fought the Romans in Galilee, escaped, came to Jerusalem, and then inspired the locals to a fanatical position that led to the Temple's destruction.  
::According to Josephus, the names of Judas's sons were "james and simon", not Jacob and simon. 20.5.2, Complete Works, Whiston, ed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.155 (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The Zealots took the Roman fortress, Masada, and killed everyone inside.  Thousands of Roman soldiers died attempting to re-take the stronghold, and even after inventing new types of seige engines, the Zealots retained control of the fortress. The Romans eventually gave up and burned the walls down.  When they stormed in, all they found were corpses.  The Zealots had committed suicide rather than continue in servitude.  [continue in servitude is not neutral point of view, also, servitude is vague] One of their leaders, Elazar ben Yair escaped to the desert fortress of Masada and fought alongside the Sicarii Zealots until Masada was captured in 73. The Jewish Revolt was quickly suppressed and the Zealots lost all their influence and finally vanished.  [according to the Masada section of wikipedia, this paragraph is not only confusing— it makes it sound like there are two Masadas— a Roman fortress and a desert fortress, which I don't think is the case, although if it is, someone should clarify it— it is also inaccurate and misleading, having confused facts, e.g. that the Romans burnt the walls down.  It says they broke through with a battering ram, and the only mention of burning is how the Zealots, not Romans, set fires to the fortress from the inside]
→ Added link for the main page about Masada. If this page isn't itself totally NPOV, it does provide some better estabilished information. --Chalom 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masada

message: While cleaning up POV Articles, I came across this talk page. I removed the NPOV and not verified tags from this article, as they were categorizing the talk page as NPOV. I also removed a few uncontested lines that were copied in. -- Irixman (t) (m) 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to this talk page 

message: Zealot redirects to this page. But as can be seen from the wikipedia dictionary and other sources, the actual historical zealots are but a minor meaning of the word today. A moder zealot need not be Jewish, or even religious at all. 
I suppose the best way to do this is to divide the page into different pages for Zealotry and Zealousness and perhaps even Zeal. 
83.226.63.73 12:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should be retitled Zealots (Judaism) or something similar, which is mostly what it is about. 75.15.194.80 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection issues 

message: "The term [zealot] derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower"." Terms cannot derive from themselves, even in other parts of speach. The definition of a word cannot contain the word itself, even in another part of speech. The word "zealous" in the definition of zelotes is absurd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.14.221 (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymologies and how not to describe words 

message: The original Hebrew term is directly translated as 'The Zealots'. How do English sources translate the name? (Current article -- which appears to discuss the old Jewish group -- name is confusing and requires clarification). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The mention of Simon the Zealot does not need to be a separate section. There only needs to be a sentence which states that '"Simon the Zealot" is listed among the disciples of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke'.
BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon the Zealot 

message: "History" and "Sicarii" need major revisions.
It is my understanding that Martin Hengel's zealot theory (parts of which are described here but for some reason Hengel is not cited at all), while influential for a long time, has now been widely rejected by scholars. Josephan studies in the last couple of decades has recognized various biases in Josephus's works that undermine using them as straight-up historical sources. This is especially true for any theories concerning Jewish resistance movements that have been derived from Jewish War and Antiquities. For example, James S. McLaren (among others) has argued quite convincingly that Judas the Galilean and the Fourth Sect are convenient scapegoats by Josephus to create chronological, geographical and social distance between the culprits of the Jewish War and the Jerusalem priestly circles.
If someone is interested, here's some bibliography to start with:
- Zuleika Rodgers, 2007 (ed). Making History. Josephus and the Historical Method. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism v. 110. Leiden: Brill.
- Martin Hengel, 1989. The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Originally in German, 1961: Die Zeloten.
- Gunnar Haaland, 2009. A Villain and the VIPs: Josephus on Judas the Galilean and the Essenes. In "Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006." Edited by Anders Klostergaard et al. Studies on the Text of the Deserts of Judah v. 80. Leiden: Brill.
- James S. McLaren, 2004. Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas. In "Negotiating Diaspora. Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire." Edited by John M.G. Barclay. London: T&T Clark International.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.171.119 (talk) 14:47, 2015 February 16 (UTC)
:You claim that "History" and "Sicarii" need revisions but you give no hints as to how they should or could be different than they are now. tahc chat 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The historical reliability of Josephus's works 

message: There is what seems like a promotional link to Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, a book about the life of Jesus by Reza Aslan. 
I'm curious as to why it remains. There are many well-considered references to the Zealots, e.g., Martin Hengel's The Zealots in particular, or any scholarly books on the subject by VanderKam, Mendels, Horsley, etc., whereas Aslan's book is not a reliable reference at all, more on the order of speculative non-fiction. I believe it has no place on this page. 222.153.68.55 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also