THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ee ee eee
pucens). The Pharisees had their roots in the Hasideans of the early Maccabean times, and they remained a party of scribes in which religious interests far outweighed all others. But by a transformation they developed away from the Hasideans, attempted to get closer to the life of the people, and to have larger influence upon the Maccabean state. This brought them into connection with politics, which indeed their ideals did not forbid. They could see in heathen control of the Holy Land the working of divine providence, even though this seemed to contradict the choice by God of the Hebrews as his own people while it did not oppose efforts to set aside this heathen control. Their religious motives were often made politically effective by the Pharisees, as when they won over the Maccabean princes, stirred up trouble for Alexander Jannzeus when he sided with the Sadducees, actually ruled through Queen Alexandra, protected the weak Hyrcanus, and furnished trouble for Herod the Great. This makes intelligible the report of Josephus that after the introduction of the census into Judea by Quirinius (q.v.) the Galilean Judas (a man learned in the law), in common with Sadduc the Pharisee, aroused the people against the Romans and thereby furnished the basis for a party which in general was in full agreement with the Pharisees, but inspired with a boundless love for freedom would recognize God alone as lord and king, thereby occasioning the troubles which came later under Gessius Florus and ended in the destruction of Jerusalem (Ant., XVIII., i. 1, 6). The war party which came into control in the time of Gessius Florus was by Josephus called that of the zealots (War, IV., i. 10), whose origin in the Pharisees he recognizes, though the party of Judas is not to be confused with Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes (War, II., vill. 1). Asa Pharisee and friend of the Romans he had an interest, indeed, in transferring responsibility for the war from the Pharisees and emphasizing the distinction between the two parties. Yet one may not with Montet (see bibliography) think of the zealots as a combination half Pharisee and half Sadducee. They emphasized the theocratic ideals of the Pharisees and then pursued these to their extreme consequences. And since the Sadduc mentioned above may well be the pupil of Shammai, it is probable that this heathen-hating school contributed ideas as well as persons to the zealots of the Jewish war. Thus is explained the proverbial regard of the zealots for the Sabbath together with their willingness to fight on that day in accordance with Shammai’s principles. Yet one must not identify the school of Shammai with the zealots, who allowed to obtrude more and more the national, social, and material in place of the legal and theocratic.
The insurrection provoked by Judas and Saddue made so little impression that a decade afterward Gamaliel could speak as is reported in Acts v. 37. But there were consequences which appeared afterward in Judas’ own family, since two sons were crucified by the procurator Tiberius Alexander. Abortive attempts were made to carry out their ideas till the times of Gessius Florus, when open insurrection broke out, and then was affixed the name zealots. The historical relationship with the earlier move-
ment is proved by the connection with the insurrection of Menahem the son of Judas, also a man learned in the law (scribe), and some of his relations. While some of the zealots belonged to the business class, this latter was generally in favor of peace. The zealots did not scruple to employ the bandits or sicarii, indeed were themselves in the later Jewish period considered as identical with them. Their,fanaticism caused them to be disowned and denownced by the Pharisees (Josephus, War, IV., iii. 9). But even in these times their Pharisaic origin is clear, since they never entered into relationship with the Sadducaic priesthood, while something is evident always of the theocratic ideas with which their development began, which were drawn from the Old Testament. (F. Srmrrertt.)
BrpuroGRAPHy: J. Derenbourg, Essai sur U’ hist. et la géographie de la Palestine d’aprés les thalmuds, pp. 237 sqa., Paris, 1867; J. Wellhausen, Die Pharistier und die Sadducter, pp. 22 sqq., 110 sqq., Greifswald, 1874; H. Graetz, Geschichte der Judter, vol. iii. passim, Leipsic, 1888; Schiirer, Geschichte, i. 486-487, 573-574, 617 sqq., Eng. transl., I., ii. 80-81, 177, 229; Oppenhaim, in Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, cols. 289-292; JE, xii. 639-643; DCG, ii. 846; the commentaries on Matthew at x. 4, and those on Mark at iii. 18; the histories of Israel which deal with the period of the Jewish War. The Assumption of Moses (see PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, 6) is an embodiment of the ideas of the zealots.
ZECHARIAH, zec’’a-rai’a.
I. The Prophet. The Closing Section (§ 3). II. The Book. 2. Chapters ix.—xiv.
1, Chapters i.—viii. Chapters ix.—xi. (§ 1). Analysis and Contents (§ 1). Chapters xii.—xiv. (§ 2). Relation to Political Events Authorship (§ 3).
(§ 2). Isolated Passages (§ 4).
I. The Prophet: The name of the Prophet Zechariah occurs several times in the book called after him (. 1, 7, vii. 1, 8) and also in Ezra v. 1, vi. 14. Berechiah, the son of Iddo, is mentioned as his father, while he himself is called in Ezra v. 1, vi. 14 “the son of Iddo,” these passages evidently giving his genealogy in abridged form. If the Iddo alluded to in Neh. xii. 4, 16 is identical with the father of Zechariah, the prophet was of a priestly family; the statement of Ezra that he was active at the same time as Haggai under Darius Hystaspis agrees with the dates in the first part of the book, which includes the period from Noy., 520, to Dec., 518.
II. The Book.—1. Chapters i.—-viii.: The book which bears the name of Zechariah consists of two principal parts: chaps. i—viii. and chaps. ix.—xiv. These divisions are so sharply defined that each must be treated separately: the first, containing frequent mention of the prophet’s name and numerous dates, consists of a short introduction, i. 1-5, and a series of visions, i. 6-vi. 8, with an addition, vi. 9-15, and a discourse regarding the continuance of the fasts, chapters vii—viii. The introduction, i. 1-5, dated in the eighth month of the second year of Darius’ reign, that is, Nov., 520, a few months later than Haggai’s first discourse (i. 1), contains a solemn warning not to follow the example of the fathers who would not listen to the prophet’s admonitions and therefore had to be forced to believe in the truth of the prophetic sayings by the misfortunes that befell them. Then follows a series of eight
1. Analysis and Contents.