Throwing Citrons

History can shed light on our present circumstances. It offers a window into old political and social issues, cautionary tales, and examples of large-scale activism that bent the will occupying powers. The window of history allows us to see outside the confines of our own circumstances and out into the vastly rich and textured scenery of the past. The lessons of history can help us navigate our perplexing world by illuminating the similar and foreign circumstances with our own as we consider solutions to modern-day problems. So as I continue to contemplate Christian participation in mass demonstrations, I’m reminded of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. He recorded several examples in Jewish history that exemplify successful protests that changed the will of their oppressors, as well as some abject failures. It is also important to mention that not all Jewish resistance was non-violent, nor were they all unsuccessful. For example, the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 B.C.E.), the first Jewish Revolt (66–70 C.E.), and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.), were all violent resistances. But I want to specifically focus on violent and non-violent mass demonstrations. Here are a few of those historical moments, both good and bad, that can help us understand the profound effects of protests to achieve equity and justice.

Josephus records a stunning example of a successful protest. In this account, emperor Gaius (Caligula) sent Petronius, who was the governor of Syria, with three legions to Jerusalem to install statues of himself in the temple (40 C.E.).[1] Gaius insisted that if he were to be rebuffed, that Petronius violently subjugate the Jewish people, to kill those that oppose him and enslave the rest. The protestors gathered at Ptolemais at Petronius’ arrival and later in a separate gathering at Tiberias. As they resisted this order, they cited the laws of their God and ancestors forbidding any imagery to be erected of any person, including God. Although the other conquered nations were subject to this, the Jewish people did not believe this applied to them. It is through their mass demonstration that Petronius capitulated, even with the possibility of losing his own life. Although in a twist of fate, Petronius hears of Caesar’s death before receiving his missive in response to his failure to carry out his commands. These protests exhibited non-violent methods including marching to Ptolemais and to Tiberias, peasants leaving their crops for over a month, refusing to be dismissed by Petronius, and symbolic action of defiance against Caesar’s order.

Josephus also records an example of a successful protest including Pontius Pilate, which occurred sometime during his governance in Judea (26–37 C.E.).[2] Here, Pilate is in the precarious position of erecting images of Tiberias Caesar in the city. Because of the offense that the Jewish residents of Jerusalem would have felt to such an act, he surreptitiously erected images of Caesar overnight. Unsurprisingly, there was outrage at Pilate’s actions. Protestors marched to Caesarea, and in chorus, insisted that Pilate remove the statues. When Pilate refused, they responded by falling prostate for five days and nights around his home. In a final effort to persuade the protestors to Caesar’s will, he had soldiers surround them with the threat of immediate execution unless they gave up their resistance. Stunningly, instead of submitting to the demands of Rome, they offered their lives in defiance to this ultimatum. Pilate ordered the images to be removed against Caesar’s initial orders as he realized the extent the protestor’s devotion. In this case, similar non-violent action was utilized from the previous example. The protesters march to Pilate in Caesarea, leave their crops and livelihoods, and offered their lives in a symbolic/real act as a statement of their commitment.

The last incidence, which occurred during King Alexander’s reign (103–76 B.C.E.), who was also known as Alexander Jannaes, is an example of failure.[3] Alexander precipitated the reaction of the people by offering an improper sacrifice at the altar on the festival of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. Functioning as the high priest during this feast, he showed completely disregard for pharisaical sensibilities by pouring the water at his feet instead of on the altar. In response, the outraged crowd threw citrons at Alexander and insulted his lineage which was deemed by many to disqualify him from holding the office of the high priest. Alexander responded to this demonstration with a violent reprisal. This retaliation was so brutal that it was said to end in the death of six thousand people! In contrast to the other protests, this one was defined by violent action against Alexander, insults and disparaging remarks, and an attempt to immediately rectify the situation without recourse to peaceful options.

The risk of citing historical examples is when we assume direct parallels between the original context and our own, as if we can derive exact solutions from these examples. These events are varied and take place within particular circumstances. For example, all three of these events revolve around improper worship practices and desecrating sacred space. Two of these protests were successful, while the other was not. The first two examples included appeals to the Roman authorities while the last one to a Jewish leader within independent statehood. The first two examples led in the capitulation of the oppressive authority, while the last one led in the death of thousands of people.

The differences between these examples and our own force us to approximate insights from history which can then guide our contemporary activism. For instance, the impetus for the protests in Josephus revolved around sacred space and ceremonial protocol. The occupying power decided to transgress religious sensibilities in order to exert its authority. Particularly in western contexts, Christians are not subject to the same type of political/religious pressure to conform reinforced by the threat of violence. Of course, there are numerous examples of unjust violence perpetuated by the State to extinguish demonstrations in western as well as more acutely in other contexts. But, in general, it is relevant to point out that the act of protesting in the ancient world could be met with lethal force not known within a western frame of reference. The protests in Josephus were also not utilized for humanitarian causes. The idea of mobilizing to ameliorate living conditions or human rights would were not typical in this context. But, these demonstrations can still offer us rich commentary on the negotiation of demands between the authorities and protestors.

One of the important features of these protests was that non-violence did not typically cause the State to violently reciprocate. In the case of the protestors attacking king Alexander, violence was the means of expressing their outrage. They had legitimate concerns, yet they reacted by throwing citrons instead of exploring other avenues of communication. Of course, Alexander’s actions precipitated this response and perhaps knowing exactly how his disregarding act was going to be received. So, in this way, there was no meaningful exchange between demonstrators and the authorities. Ironically, the retaliation for this demonstration is met with exaggerated retribution, not unlike one might assume would have happened in the other examples under Roman rule. And so, instead of pressuring Alexander through large-scale non-violent action, they turned to more radical means and were disproportionately punished for it. This tragic example provides us with a cautionary tale of how violence could have disastrous ends.

In the successful demonstrations, there was also mass mobilization. The Jewish protestors marched to Ptolemais, Caesarea, and Tiberias which allowed them to collectively organize and gained momentum as they travelled. They also participated in large-scale acts such as sit-ins and displays of self-sacrifice. These actions communicated to the presiding rulers that they have demands and are to be taken seriously. It frames the correspondence between the parties as a mode of communication. The offended articulates their demands and initiates these actions while waiting for the response by the other party. Mass mobilization is instrumental in effectively addressing issues of equity and justice.

Another important insight is that they exerted economic and social pressure onto the authorities. Like in the case of Petronius, peasants left their crops for weeks! This put economic strain on everyone. Petronius is now faced with a dilemma. The longer he does not resolve this issue, the worse the pressure gets. Other prominent political leaders and members of the royal family in Judea entreated Petronius to inform Caesar that the resistance of the Jewish people was such that he could not enact his orders. Petronius was ultimately influenced by this pressure, both by the economic and social implications of ceasing agricultural practices and the political pressure levied on him by other leaders. In our context, this could be akin to disrupting traffic, marching through cities, or placing economic and social pressure on the State through other means in order to effectively communicate demands.

In the successful protests, the demonstrators were willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause. Being occupied by Rome left the protestors with limited options. They could either revolt or sacrifice themselves. There were no illusions that Rome was a benevolent occupying force. They appealed to the governing authorities and if necessary were ready to lay down their lives. Pilate and Petronius saw the unified stance of the demonstrators and were compelled to rescind Caesar’s orders. But they were not without any leverage, as if they were powerless. For instance, some of the concerns with enacting these Roman orders is the possibility of violence. So, in this sense, they also were able to leverage that possibility, which is implicit in these demonstrations. But the incredible thing is that in these cases, they turned to other means before that option is explored. Self-sacrifice was the dominate ethos of these effective protests.

These examples in Jewish history can help us to see how unified and self-sacrificial people can achieve great change. It is inspiring that under more extreme conditions and seemingly insurmountable odds, other movements like these have overcome their circumstances. Considering that, I want to suggest that history can offer us tools to inspire and guide our own engagement with equity and justice. Whether we feel the need to participate in collective action in issues like climate change, State violence, or racial injustice, we can be sure that there are historical precedents before us that we can learn from.

[1] Josephus, J.W. 2.184–2-3; Ant. 18:261–309. [2] Josephus, J.W. 2.169–77; Ant. 18:55–59. [3] Josephus, J.W. 4.88–89; Ant. 13:372–6.