CHALLENGING THE MASADA NARRATIVE: The History News Network has an essay by Australian freelance writer Kim Stubbs which asks "Is the Truth About Masada Less Romantic?". The answer to this sort of question is almost inevitably yes. In the essay she summarizes recent challenges to the traditional understanding of the story. Excerpt:

There are many apparent anomalies in the Masada story, and many of these can be traced to Yigael Yadin and his interpretation of the archaeological remains. Although a revered figure in Israel, he has been accused of interpreting his finds to fit with the heroic mythos of Masada. As to his motives for doing this, [Nachman] Ben-Yehuda suggests “nationalistic, ideological motivation played a very major part in the decision to excavate Masada”. 12 He also argues that a nation needs myths to help it “shape a central process of nation and state-building….to shape identities and create cohesion by fostering a strong sense of a shared past”. 13 This is particularly true of Israel at the time of Yadin’s dig. Less than two decades old and surrounded on all sides by enemies dedicated to her destruction, Israel needed “a new type of Jew, somebody that was willing to fight and die for his own country”. 14 Yadin interpreted the events at Masada in a way that provided the requisite role model.

Wherever the truth lies, the Masada story still resonates strongly today both as an enduring symbol of the Jewish state’s struggle for existence and of human courage in the face of insurmountable opposition. ...

I have noted reviews of Ben-Yehuda's book Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Masada Myth here. And there's a summary of the book by Ben-Yehuda himself at the Bible and Interpretation website. (I seem not to have noted this before.) I have posted some comments on the Sicarii here and here. I do think it's troubling that the heroic understanding of the Masada story which has developed in Israel is based on the actions of the Sicarii, whom Josephus presents as unsavory characters indeed. See especially Jewish War 4.7.2:

And now a fourth misfortune arose, in order to bring our nation to destruction. There was a fortress of very great strength not far from Jerusalem, which had been built by our ancient kings, both as a repository for their effects in the hazards of war, and for the preservation of their bodies at the same time. It was called Masada. Those that were called Sicarii had taken possession of it formerly, but at this time they overran the neighboring countries, aiming only to procure to themselves necessaries; for the fear they were then in prevented their further ravages. But when once they were informed that the Roman army lay still, and that the Jews were divided between sedition and tyranny, they boldly undertook greater matters; and at the feast of unleavened bread, which the Jews celebrate in memory of their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage, when they were sent back into the country of their forefathers, they came down by night, without being discovered by those that could have prevented them, and overran a certain small city called Engaddi:--in which expedition they prevented those citizens that could have stopped them, before they could arm themselves, and fight them. They also dispersed them, and cast them out of the city. As for such as could not run away, being women and children, they slew of them above seven hundred. Afterward, when they had carried every thing out of their houses, and had seized upon all the fruits that were in a flourishing condition, they brought them into Masada. And indeed these men laid all the villages that were about the fortress waste, and made the whole country desolate; while there came to them every day, from all parts, not a few men as corrupt as themselves.

My bold-font emphasis.

UPDATE (13 June): Stuart Bornstein e-mails:

Why is Josephus a reliable source. Not for the facts on the ground but as to whether the people where Sicarii. That stands alone on his say so. He wrote if I am not mistaken as a guest of the Romans. Would he really have called them wonderful freedom fighters? Would the Romans have stood for that? How do we know that the Romans didn't commit the massacre at Ein Geddi.

As far as Yigal Yadin went, The complaints say that he was trying to install a nationalistic ideological motivation. Come on even if he was wrong; and there have been years to reevaluate the evidence, he could just have made a mistake. That is if he made a mistake. And exaggerations are not the same as mistakes because that would imply that the numbers are as precise as modern statistics, etc. when there are only guesses. Some better some worse.

Last but not least the exaggerations noted were in 2 speeches 10 years apart - 1964-1973. If everyone's words would be parsed to that extent, there would be few people who would not look like a fool.

As I have said elsewhere in print, Josephus is tendentious, self-serving, and frequently self-contradictory. But in this context it cuts both ways. The Sicarii and Josephus' portrayal of them are so closely bound up in his account of the events on Masada that it would be very difficult to separate the two. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the details of his account of the fall of Masada and it's possible that his account of the Sicarii is inaccurate too (although I know of know evidence for the latter and haven't seen it argued anywhere). But the question is not how do we know the Romans didn't do it, but what is the evidence that they did. What is the evidence for a different understanding of the Sicarii?

My point was that the account of Masada in popular culture draws on Josephus' story to make the defenders look like heroes, yet ignores the elements in that same story which make them look like murderous thugs. Granted, we should be cautious about imposing our standards on people who lived in antiquity in a much more violent and cruel world, but if Josephus is accurate, the Sicarii don't come off well even if we make such allowances. In any case, I think the selectivity of the modern popular version, which is not based on any critical sifting of the sources, is troubling.

Regarding Yadin, those who followed the links in this post will see that I have already noted that Ben-Yehuda has been taken to task for impugning Yadin's character. I haven't studied this whole issue enough to have a strong opinion about the matter, but I'd say in his book on Masada Yadin seems sincere, if sometimes too enthusiastic about getting the archaeological evidence to fit with Josephus. This is an occupational hazard we all face.

UPDATE: Reader Michael Pitkowsky e-mails:

A very good treatment of the "Masada Myth" in Israeli culture is Yael Zerubavel's book /Recovered Roots/.