Eleazar ben Dinaeus and the troubles in the years under Cumanus

Josephus’ narrative of the first century is highly coloured by the most important event that happened both to him and to all people that lived in Roman Palestine during the second half of this century, the Jewish Civil War of 66-70. Throughout his works, Josephus explains this war as a conflict between Roman legitimate power and some malicious troublemakers who did not represent the majority of the Jewish people in Roman Palestine. His account of, say, the last twenty years before the war, aims to show the reader that Palestinian troublemakers, often called leistai, were constantly causing unrest and violent mischief. By doing so, he was supporting his more general thesis, clearing himself, the Jerusalem priests, and the Jewish population of Roman Palestine at large from any blame for the outbreak of the Revolt.254

Starting from around the year 48, approximately around the time when Josephus could rely on his own experiences, his narrative turns into a series of scenes depicting malicious men (leistai, sicarii, false prophets, …) adding to the turmoil that resulted into the Jewish Civil War. This part of the narratives set forth in both Antiquitates Iudaicae and Bellum Iudaicum starts with two stories that have been used by both the adherents of the Zealot and social banditry models as clear evidence supporting their interpretation of latrocinium in early Roman Palestine.255 The second of these stories introduced Eleazar ben Dinaeus, an important archileistes. According to Josephus, either one or a group of many Galileans travelling to Jerusalem to celebrate a religious festival were slain by the villagers of a Samaritan village.256 Learning about this, the leaders of the Galilean people went to Cumanus, the Judean procurator, and urged him to take measures to punish the Samaritans for their crimes. Cumanus however, bribed by the Samaritans according to Josephus, denied their petition and sent them away.

254 _{Rajak (1983), 78-83; Bilde (1988), 77-78 Goodman (1989), 20-21; Mason (1991), 64-67; McLaren (1998), 55-}

56; Smith (1999), 502-503 and Brighton (2009), 29-33.

255 _{The first being the attack on Stephanus: Flavius Josephus, Bellum Iudaicum 2.228-231 and Antiquitates} Iudaicae 20.113-117; the second the troubles after the attack of the Samaritans on (a) Galilean traveler(s): Flavius Josephus, Bellum Iudaicum 2.232-249 and Antiquitates Iudaicae 20.118-136. For the interpretation of these stories from a ‘Zealot point of view’, see Hengel (1989), 346-348. For the interpretation of these stories from a ‘social banditry point of view’, see Horsley (1979), 57-58 and Hanson and Horsley (1999), 67-68 and 71-72.

256 _{In Bellum Iudaicum 2.232, Josephus talks about one Galilean who was attacked and killed by the Samaritans;}

in Antiquitates Iudaicae 20.118, he claims a group of many Galileans were attacked and killed by these same Samaritans.

59

When news of this failed encounter with the procurator reached the people attending the religious festival, anger spread and they decided to take matters in their own hands. Aided by the brigand chiefs (archileistai) Eleazar ben Dinaeus and Alexander, they marched against Samaria, where they attacked and destroyed villages. Cumanus now decided to intervene, but it was only after the intervention of the Jerusalem elite that the authorities succeeded in calming down the situation. Ultimately, the case was referred to the emperor Claudius, who decided, after interference from the Jewish king Agrippa II, to choose sides with the Jews; condemning the leaders of the Samaritans to be executed and Cumanus to be banished.257

There are good reasons for seeing Eleazar ben Dinaeus and Alexander as regional strongmen caught up in latrocinium-like activities. About Alexander, nothing more is known besides his involvement in the Samaria case. Eleazar ben Dinaeus however, is mentioned again around the year 55, when he is caught by Felix, the new procurator of Judea.258

Various elements in Josephus’ accounts of his arrest point towards Eleazar not being a mere bandit, but a man of some status, who happened to be involved in latrocinium-like activities. First, he was able to roam the countryside for twenty years, an incredibly long period of time, impossible to achieve without the support of a regional support network. Second, he was, with some important accomplices, send to Rome to be tried by Caesar, while the normal procedure was that bandits were tried and executed by the governor or the procurator himself. Eleazar’s special treatment is also highlighted by Josephus’ mention of other bandits being crucified by Felix, who were caught around the same time as Eleazar. Third, all other leistai mentioned by name by Josephus can be identified as regional, or at best local, strongmen.259 _It

thus seems reasonable to state that Eleazar and Alexander too were regional strongmen involved in latrocinium-like activities, as there is no reasons why Josephus would call them by name if they were mere peasants performing such activities.

In the remainder of this chapter, our focus will be on investigating how regional strongmen like Eleazar ben Dinaeus and Alexander were able to remain in power for considerable amounts of time. We will look at how they forged ties with the rural dwellers performing latrocinium-like activities, how they dealt with other strongmen wanting to usurp

257 _{Flavius Josephus, Bellum Iudaicum 2.232-249 and Antiquitates Iudaicae 20.118-136.} 258 _{Flavius Josephus, Bellum Iudaicum 2.253 and Antiquitates Iudaicae 20.160-161.}

259 _{These other archileistai were Hezekiah, Zenodorus, Syllaeus, Zamaris, Simon the royal slave, Athrongaeus,}

Judas the Galilean, Asinaios and Anilaios, Tholomaeus, Jacob and Simon ben Judas, Simon ben Gioras, Jesus of Ptolemais, Jesus ben Shaphat, Justus ben Pistus, and John of Gischala. For more information about these people, see Appendix B.

60

their position of power in the countryside, and how they tried to form a working relation with the central authorities who were the legitimate rulers of their ‘rural principalities’.