The Pulling the Thread Podcast

The notion of Jesus and early Christianity was a zealot or revolutionary movement has gained traction in recent years. Advocates argue that Jesus was a radical figure challenging Roman occupation, calling for profound social and political change. Within the Gospels, several passages support a zealot or revolutionary interpretation of Jesus. Instances such as Jesus cleansing the Temple (Mark 11:15-19) symbolically challenging Roman occupation, the parable of the wicked tenants (Matthew 21:33-41) criticizing the Jewish religious elite, and Jesus proclaiming not peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34) hinting at a call for a more aggressive stance can be interpreted in this light. Additionally, a third of his 12 disciples are identified as Zealots and Sicarii. His chosen leadership team included radical revolutionaries. Prominent scholars, including John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan, argue for a zealot interpretation. Crossan, in “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,” suggests Jesus was part of the Zealot movement, seeking to overthrow Roman rule. Aslan, in “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” portrays Jesus as a political revolutionary challenging Roman authority.

In his book “Jesus and the Zealots,” S.G.F. Brandon explores the historical context of Jesus’ life and ministry, specifically examining the relationship between Jesus and the Zealots—a Jewish resistance movement opposed to the Roman occupation of Judea. Brandon suggests that Jesus had connections or affiliations with the Zealot movement. The Zealots were known for their resistance against Roman rule, and Brandon explores the possibility that Jesus, in some way, aligned with or sympathized with their cause. The book also delves into the political dimensions of Jesus’ mission, emphasizing that Jesus may have been perceived as a political figure seeking to challenge Roman authority and establish a different social and political order. Brandon explores the idea that Jesus was part of a messianic movement with revolutionary aims against Roman rule. This perspective suggests that Jesus, rather than being solely a religious figure, played a role in the broader political landscape of his time. Jesus’ teachings and actions may have been interpreted as a critique of the Roman occupation of Judea. It explores the possibility that elements of Jesus’ message and ministry aligned with the sentiments and goals of the Zealot movement.

Other scholars, such as Richard Horsley, Hyam Maccoby, and Oscar Cullmann, present nuanced views. Horsley, in “Jesus and the Spiral of Violence,” sees Jesus within the broader pattern of resistance against imperial power. Maccoby, in “Revolution in Judea,” proposes a messianic movement with revolutionary aims against Roman rule. Cullmann, in “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” explores the political dimensions of Jesus’ ministry, emphasizing revolutionary potential in his teachings.

Another prominent scholar who supports a revolutionary interpretation of Jesus is Marcus Borg. In his book “Jesus: A New Vision,” Borg argues that Jesus was a radical prophet who called for social and political change. Borg points to the fact that Jesus preached about the kingdom of God, which he envisioned as a new society based on justice, peace, and equality. On the other hand Geza Vermes argued that Jesus was a charismatic leader who attracted a following of zealots, but that he himself was not a violent revolutionary.

These authors and scholars argue that Jesus was a revolutionary figure who challenged the Roman occupation of Judea and the Jewish religious establishment. They point to the fact that Jesus was executed by the Roman state as evidence of his subversive activities. They also argue that Jesus’ teachings were radical and subversive, calling for a new social order based on justice and equality. For example, Aslan argues that Jesus was a “political Messiah” who was “trying to overthrow the Roman occupation of Judea.” He points to Jesus’ actions, such as driving the moneychangers out of the Temple, as evidence of his revolutionary intentions. Crossan argues that Jesus was a “peasant prophet” who led a “social revolution” against the Roman Empire. He points to Jesus’ teachings on poverty, wealth, and social justice as evidence of his revolutionary message.

E.P. Sanders in his book “The Zealots: A History of the Jewish Resistance” argues that Jesus was a “zealot,” a member of a Jewish resistance movement that opposed the Roman occupation of Judea. He points to Jesus’ execution by the Roman state as evidence of his association with the Zealots. Horsley argues that Jesus was a “revolutionary prophet” who led a “social movement” that challenged the Roman Empire and the Jewish religious establishment. He points to Jesus’ teachings on poverty, wealth, and social justice as evidence of his revolutionary message. Gerd Theissen in her book “The Jesus Movement: A Socio-Historical Study” argues that Jesus was a “charismatic leader” who led a “religious movement” that challenged the Roman Empire and the Jewish religious establishment. He points to Jesus’ teachings on the Kingdom of God as evidence of his revolutionary message.

In recent years, archaeologists have discovered a number of artifacts that shed light on the Zealot movement. For example, in 2009, archaeologists discovered a coin with the inscription “For the freedom of Jerusalem” that dates back to the time of Jesus. This coin is seen as evidence that the Zealot movement was active during this time period. In addition to the Gospels and archaeological evidence, proponents of the zealot and revolutionary interpretations of Jesus and early Christianity also point to other sources, such as the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Christian theologian Origen.

The core of Acts goes beyond mere event narration; its essence lies in the intricate story with its creative narrative unfolding. In the pivotal address to the Sanhedrin by Pharisee Gamaliel (Acts 5), the eloquence underscores a meticulous consideration of actions. Historical examples, namely the rebellions of Theudas and Judas, are invoked to urge caution. However, a closer scrutiny reveals a chronological discrepancy. Acts positions Judas after Theudas, contrary to historical timelines explicitly stated in Gamaliel’s speech: “Some time ago Theudas rose up in rebellion… Subsequently, at the time of the census, Judas of Galilee also rose up and gathered a pack of rebels” (Acts 5:36–37). Richard Pervo attributes this discrepancy to Luke’s reading of Josephus, who treated Theudas before Judas (source: Pervo, Dating Acts, pp.152–60).

“But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are about to do with these men. For, some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee appeared in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:33-39)

Morton Smith deepens the intrigue by critiquing Acts 5:33-39, highlighting historical inaccuracies, and revealing a profound expectation within Christian propaganda—that Jesus is perceived akin to the social types of Judas and Theudas (source: Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, p.20).

“Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” (Acts 21:38)

In Acts 21:38, where Paul is mistaken for the Egyptian leader, Oscar Cullmann draws attention to a parallel historical event involving a leader plotting revolt with 4000 Sicarii. The Roman tribune’s question reflects the broader challenge faced by Jews, compelled to grapple with the threat of zealotry. Cullmann’s observation, echoed in later patristic literature, underscores that the Jesus movement was inherently perceived as rebellious, even from the times of Acts’ composition. The Romans felt threatened by zealots and saw early Christianity as a potential menace.

The significance extends beyond the narratives to the expression in Acts. Gamaliel’s speech unveils a chronological sequence misalignment, potentially influenced by Luke’s reading of Josephus. Scholars like Richard Pervo and Morton Smith scrutinize this distortion, questioning the historical accuracy of Acts. The expectation among early Christians that Jesus aligns with rebellious figures like Judas and Theudas further complicates the intricate interplay between Christian beliefs and historical narratives.

Oscar Cullmann’s assertion, “As attested in later patristic literature, the Jesus movement was perceived as rebellious even from the times of Acts composition” (source: Jesus and the revolutionaries, p.5), underscores the complex layers shaping the understanding of the early Christian narrative. Insights from the Acts Seminar Report and scholars like Cullmann accentuate the nuanced relationship between historical accuracy, narrative intent, and societal perceptions in the New Testament.

These scholars argue that Jesus and his early followers were revolutionary, challenging Roman rule and the established religious order. The Zealots were involved in the revolt in 66 CE that led to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Zealots made their last stand at Masada this is also why Jesus Zealot movement was persecuted for not following in the Bar Kohkba revolt. The execution of Jesus by the Romans serves as evidence of his subversive activities, while his teachings advocate for a new social order rooted in justice and equality preceded the destruction of the temple.