Book Reviews 135

The conclusion (chap. 6) is not a summary; it is an "outline"of future research.

Without demonstrating his position, Blaszczak thinks we should not regard the Odes
as representing the thought of one author or school. Here he has not sufficiently
studied Harnack's book on the Odes, in which he attempted to show that the Odes
were a Jewish psalmbook redacted by a Christian. This hypothesis was dismissed by
G. Kittel in his Die Oden Salomos: U(berarbeitetoder Einheitlich?(1914), and Harnack

Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article-pdf/107/1/135/974929/3267841.pdf by guest on 17 February 2022

later retracted his position.
Very promising is Blaszczak'scategorization of some Odes into an "ascentgroup'."
He seems to be attracted to the conclusion that the Odes fit into the setting of some
type of community worship. He correctly stresses that Jewish wisdom speculation
played an important role in the author's community.
There is far more of a consensus on the Odes than the author perceives. Virtually
everyone who has published a detailed article on the original language of the Odes
after the discovery of the Greek papyrus concludes that they were composed in
Syriac. Among such scholars are Adam, Charlesworth, Emerton, Grant, and V66bus.
Since L. Abramowski's seminar in Tiibingen, and B. McNeil's work in Cambridge
there is now very wide agreement that the Odes were composed sometime in the
second century C.E.The relation of the Odes to gnosticism is less acknowledged now
than 20 years ago; and no reputable scholar thinks they represent full-blown
gnosticism. Once the Jewish nature of the Odes was defended; now most specialists
would agree with Emerton's statement that "there can be no doubt at all that they
are Christian"(in H. F. D. Sparks, TheApocryphal Old Testament[Oxford:Clarendon,
1984] 638). In fact, the introductions to the Odes in The Old TestamentPseudepig-
rapha (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983-85) and in The Apocryphal Old
Testamentare strikingly similar on the major issues.
Blaszczak gives the impression that the Odes were recognized in Codex
Askewianus in the eighteenth century. The first to discover them in this manuscript
was F. Miinter (Odae gnosticae Salomoni tributae [Copenhagen, 1812]).
The monograph is short; the typescript of the discussion is only 99 pages long.
The author has given us his random prolegomenous reflections on why he thinks the
Odes should be studied using form criticism.
J. H. Charlesworth
Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08542

Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time ofJesus, by Richard
A. Horsley and John S. Hanson. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis/
Chicago/New York:Winston, 1985. Pp. xxviii + 271. $28.85.
According to this well-written and important study, the peasantry played a far
greater role in first-century Jewish social history than has been recognized. NT
scholars and other historians of the period have typically ignored the ninety per cent
of the population who were peasants, concentrating instead on the ideas and beliefs
of literate groups within Judaism. Using Josephus as their primary source and draw-
ing upon studies of peasant societies and revolutionary movements, the authors
present a fresh and persuasive account of Jewish popular movements at the time of
Jesus, and of the social conditions which generated them.
136 Journal of Biblical Literature

A sketch of ancient Israel's history up to the Bar Kochba revolt in 132-135 C.E.
provides the book's central dynamic: Israel originated as a "free peasantry" in
covenant with God, and the struggle between peasantry and ruling elites, domestic
and foreign, became a central element in her subsequent history. The memory of
Israel'sorigins functioned as an ideal in both her Scripture and popular tradition and,
added to the tensions marking any two-class social structure, created an ethos which

Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article-pdf/107/1/135/974929/3267841.pdf by guest on 17 February 2022

easily sparked peasant movements.
The heart of the book is a fourfold typology of popular movements in Roman
Palestine. First, armed and sometimes sizable groups of "social bandits" were a
natural outgrowth of economic conditions of the time. Here the authors make
especially persuasive use of peasant society studies. Made up largely of landless or
resentful peasants who attacked and robbed the ruling elites of Romans and wealthy
Jews, the social bandits may have been perceived by the peasantry as heroes or
defenders, as in many peasant societies. Though "pre-political" and primarily
pursuing personal economic gain, their activity contributed to the tensions leading
to the great revolt of 66-70 C.E., which many of them joined.
Types two, three, and four of peasant movements all had varying degrees of
political intention or awareness. The second, "royalpretenders and popular messianic
movements,"appeared at the time of Herod's death in 4 B.C.E.and during the two
rebellions of 66-70 and 132-135 C.E. Arguing that these movements reflected a
popular tradition in which kingship was revolutionary and by popular election, in
contrast to the official kingship ideology of the ruling elites, the authors associate
these movements with messianic expectations. The royal pretenders thus become
messianic pretenders. The third type, "popularprophetic movements' formed around
two kinds of popular prophets: action and oracular.Three of the former are described
in detail: the Samaritanprophet, Theudas, and the Egyptian each gathered a follow-
ing of peasants who left their homes in expectation of a dramatic act of deliverance.
Oracular prophets such as John the Baptist and Jesus ben Hananiah warned of
judgment, while unnamed others spoke of deliverance.
Fourth, the authors analyze three movements associated with active resistance
to Rome: the "fourth philosophy,"the Sicarii, and the Zealots. Though commonly
joined together by modern scholars under the designation "Zealots,' the authors
rightly emphasize their differences. The first two were not actually peasant
movements. The "fourth philosophy" was a scribal movement committed to non-
cooperation with Roman taxation and is not to be thought of as an armed resistance
movement. The Sicarii were urban intellectuals who used the strategy of selective
assassination of members of the Jewish ruling elite. The term "Zealots"properly refers
to a particular group which came into existence only after the beginning of the great
revolt; even then, it was but one of several revolutionary groups active in Jerusalem.
Composed of peasants displaced by the Roman reconquest of Judea, the Zealots
sought to enact an alternative political program informed by Israel's egalitarian past.
Finally, a concluding chapter usefully summarizes the argument and considers its
implications for our understanding of the Jewish revolt, the career of Jesus, and the
origins of the early church.
The book makes both a negative and a positive contribution. Negatively, it
thoroughly destroys the Zealot hypothesis, a destruction anticipated in several studies
published in the 1970s. The notion that there was a unified resistance movement
 Book Reviews 137

known as the Zealots with a well-defined ideology, operating throughout the first
century and primarily responsible for igniting the catastrophic war with Rome, has
been a major element in standard descriptions of first-century Jewish Palestine. That
notion has now (it is to be hoped) been laid to rest.
Positively, a compelling picture of first-century Jewish social history emerges.
The central conflict, the authors conclude, was not between the Zealots and Rome,

Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article-pdf/107/1/135/974929/3267841.pdf by guest on 17 February 2022

but "between the Jewish ruling groups and the Romans on the one side and the
Jewish peasantry on the other" (p. 245). The turmoil had a much broader base than
a single resistance movement, and expressed itself in a variety of movements. The
whole period "was marked by widespread discontent and periodic turbulence in
Palestinian Jewish society" (p. 35).
Though the book as a whole is compelling, parts are less so. Least persuasive is
the claim that the "royalpretenders" were "messianic"claimants. Sources from the
period do not use "messiah"to refer to anybody (other than Jesus) prior to Bar Kochba
in the second century C.E. Moreover, the authors properly note the lack of clarity
about the meaning of the term in the first century. Devoid of specific meaning,
"messiah" in their work becomes synonymous with "king";any Jew proclaiming
himself "king"is seen as proclaiming himself "messiah."Hence the term loses any
meaning beyond "royalpretender."Designating these movements as "messianic"thus
seems meaningless and misleading. We simply do not know whether they were or not.
Occasionally the authors claim to know too much, as when they describe the
Sicarii as urban intellectuals in both leadership and membership (p. 202). That they
were urban seems clear. That the leaders were intellectuals is based on slender
evidence; that the members as well were intellectuals simply goes beyond anything
the sources say. They may have been; but we have no way of knowing.
Finally, the category of "peasant"may be too undifferentiated. Within the largely
agrarian society of first-century Palestine, the category includes a broad range:
landless peasants, marginal landholders, reasonably secure small farmers, and some
with larger holdings. The difference between a landless peasant, living by day-labor
or begging, and a more prosperous farmer still able to live the respectable life of
conventional wisdom centered around family and property was considerable. One
had a stake in the status quo, the other not.
Nevertheless, the book is important and ground-breaking. It is the first full-
length work in English to make systematic use of peasant studies in the analysis of
anti-establishment movements in first-century Palestine. Methodologically, it is an
illuminating instance of the growing use of insights drawn from the social sciences
in NT studies. Substantially, it is a major contribution to our understanding of the
first-century Jewish social world.
MarcusJ. Borg
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

Weisheit und Messias: Die jiidischen Voraussetzungender christlichen Priiexistenz-

christologie, by Gottfried Schimanowski. WUNT, ser.2,17. Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
1985. Pp. xiii + 450. DM 78 (paper).
The purpose of this 1981 Tiibingen dissertation is to trace the Jewish background
of the christological idea of pre-existence. Pre-existence here is understood as