Banditry (Hobsbawm 1965, 1981; Lincoln 2008), or “social” banditry (Horsley and Hanson 1985), emerged in traditional rural agrarian societies where peasants were exploited by the authorities, government, and/or landowners, particularly when economic vulnerability was marked and governments were administratively inefficient.

See Banditry in the Time of Jesus: Champions of the Oppressed Peasantry
See Banditry in the Time of Jesus: Exploitation, Famine, and Leadership

After decades of economic vulnerability brought on by imposed tribute and various taxations, the presence of famine, ineffective state and Roman government, and oppressive acts against the Jewish peasantry, banditry snowballed into “epidemic proportions.” Such was the outcome of a continuous pattern of civil unrest caused by “crisis points” that compelled local populations to perform collective acts of rebellion (Dyson 1971, 170-175; cited in Lincoln 2008, 234-237):

• Taxation. Various imposed Roman forms of taxation forced subjugated communities to participate in the Roman market economy, thereby causing tensions within the established agricultural economies. Judea, like many other conquered territories, early on under Roman rule experienced the imposition of new tax regimes, resulting in widespread tension and revolt.

• Debt. The increased burden based on taxation and exposure to economic changes led to increasingly high levels of debt in order to survive.

• Landlessness. Rising levels of debt and penury caused the loss of land and changes in the social and economic status of farmer peasants.

• Frontier zones. Societies located adjacent to frontier zones and remote highland areas made effective control of large swathes of territory difficult to control and administer. These areas could be fled to by dissident groups and from where opposition to Roman rule could continue from the edges of the Empire.

• Local aristocracy. The Romans controlled the local aristocracy by co-opting them into the local political systems, which assisted in quelling resistance. This strategy, however, did not work successfully in Jewish Palestine.

• Religion. The Romans generally accepted local religions in Judea and the other Jewish territories in the first century CE, which meant the local populations were relatively free to practice their traditions. The Jewish religion, however, based on the centrality of its Mosaic code and the common Jewish identity as a nation that reveled in its freedom, proved major factors behind the sustained revolts against Roman occupation.

A “tipping point” would occur in the 50s CE (Lincoln 2008, 235), although much less is known before this period. The historian’s principal source, Josephus, provides little information for the period from the Roman deposition of Archelaus (6 CE), the son and successor of Herod in Judea, to the end of the reign of Agrippa I (r. 6-44 CE). Why Josephus is silent is unknown, although a lack of sources for the period might explain why he does not report any significant bandit activity until almost the mid-first century. 

But when the 50s and 60s appeared, banditry was “reaching epidemic proportions” when “brigands made up a significant portion of the fighting forces who drove the Roman troops from Judea in the summer and fall of 66” (Horsley and Hanson 1985, 48).

It was this period during which both Cumanus (r. 48–52) and Felix (r. 52–60) expended great effort to suppress them. Josephus recalls that “the whole of Judea was infested with brigands” following Cumanus’ military action against the expedition of Judean peasants (Ant. 20.124). Then referring to Felix, Josephus describes the capture of “the brigandchief Eleazar, who for twenty years had plundered the country, as well as many of his associates,” whom were sent “to Rome for trial. The number of brigands that he crucified… was enormous” (J.W. 2.253).

Banditry continued expanding under the conditions, levies, and taxations imposed by the Albinus administration (r. 62-64) (J.W. 2.272-73; Ant. 20.215) and because of the deeply entrenched polarization of the rich and the poor (Ant. 20.180).

Administrative inconsistency did not help the Romans control the circumstances either. Festus (r. 60-62) had instituted a repressive policy and imprisoned many, even for trivial offenses. This policy was reversed by Albinus, who also condoned ransoms from the relatives of many prisoners. This inconsistent administrative policy, however, worsened circumstances, as observed by Josephus: “Thus the prison was cleared of inmates, but the land then became infested with brigands” (Ant. 20.215). The subsequent procurator, Gessius Florus (r. 64-66), behaved likewise, even more publicly and outrageously. 

Reaching the tipping point, since “the majority of people” practiced banditry, whole towns were being destroyed (Ant. 20.255), and the wealthy also became targets. Many wealthy Jews left their estates to relocate to safer spaces among the Gentile populations. Josephus proclaimed that “Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually; for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude” (Ant. 20:160). With little to lose from the increasing disorder, a sizeable portion of the population had become outlaws (Horsley and Hanson 1985, 69).

It is unlikely that without their presence and fighting experience, the Roman armies would have been driven out of Judea in 66 CE. These bandit groups boasted effective control over certain areas soon after the outbreak of the revolt. However, the short war ended in the devastation of the Jews, many lives, and their nation.

References

Dyson, S. L. 1975. “Native revolt patterns in the Roman Empire.” ANRW II 3:138-175.

Lincoln, L. R. 2008. “Jewish Banditry and Peasant Protest Movements 6-66 CE: A Comparative Approach.” Journal for Semitics 17(1):219-239.

Hobsbawm, E. J. 1965. Primitive Rebels. New York: Norton.

Hobsbawm, E. J. 1981. Bandits. NewYork: Pantheon.

Horsley, R. A., and Hanson, J. S. 1985. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus. Winston Press.