storytime

I don't know what Jewish representation there would have been in Rome or Roman government, but I also don't know what Clingon peoples representation would have been in Rome. The Jews were not the only people in subjection to Roman rules ya know. Think outside the Jewish box for a change.

Did the Jews get a say? I have no idea. Did the Jews walk on Roman roads, go to the Collesium for entertainment? Trade and bargain with Romans in goods and services? Did the Jews receive representation in taxes they paid by enjoying a more civilized world of Rome? As Sarah Palin might say: "Ya Betcha!"

premjan

You might benefit from thinking outside the Roman box for a change. If Rome was so great for Israel how come they rebelled against it? Apparently the rest of Europe was happy to have Rome rule them (likely not so much but they put up with it) whereas Israel had the balls to rebel. For which they paid a big price.

storytime

Ok, let me think outside the Roman box. If Rome was so great for Israel, how come the Jews rebelled against it?

Their Jewish religion provided many reasons. One being taxation. According to OT, the Jews were commanded not to charge interest among themselves. It was ok to charge interest on non Jews. This situation somehow played into the policy of Jews concerning Roman taxation. The Jews saw a double tax[interest] by which their doctrine via their Gods order, prohibited. Judaism was in and of itself a self governing politic. No interference from outside Gentiles was allowed. So they fought against Rome in this one area of not paying Roman taxes. Another area of protest was, as Joseph said, the idea of honoring another god or gods. At this time the Jesus story was only a wink in the Roman eye. The Jews in their days before Jesus objected to the gods of Rome. The Roman officials seemed to have tolerated Jewish objections and protests for a while. Nero seems to be the one emperor who decided he'd had enough of Jewish ignoring of Roman gods and himself in particular. Nero as a god, wanted recognition as a god. The Jews would have protested this god-man just as they did in later years of Jesus the god-man. Both these were set up as idols that were different than the Jewish idol - the Hebrew god Yahweh.

arnoldo

Eusebius writes about the following tradition of Jesus writings the following letter;

Toto

arnoldo: this supposed letter to Abgar is universally regarded as fictional, whether you want to call it an outright forgery or a pious fable for those who needed that level of concrete detail. Why are you mentioning it?

DCHindley

An oral message, which is presumed will be written doen by the messenger of Abgar, is exactly what "he said" is supposed to indicate. Sheez!

DCH

mountainman

The message of Jesus (if any) was by Eusebius reported as written.
It was physically retrieved from the scroll archives.
Eusebius reports that he translates it from Syriac to Greek.
Very resourceful archivalist is Constantine's man Eusebius.

A.M. on Eusebian Ecclesiastical Historiography

p.137
"What is unmistakably apparent in ecclesiatical historians is the care for their documentation."

"The very importance of precedent and tradition in ecclesiastical history compelled the ecclesiastical historians to quote documentary evidence to an extent which is seldom to be found in political historians."

Chapter 6 - The Origins of Ecclesiastical Historiography
The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano
Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62)

Tristan Scott

I'll second that sheez.

arnoldo

You can get the whole story here: THE DOCTRINE OF ADDAI:This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse

IamJoseph

I really cannot see any tax issues here. The war had been building up for decades - which had nothing to do with taxes, considering the long period. There was no possibility any nation could not pay the tax even for a short time. The tax was paid and sacrifices to Rome was also made - the latter being more a cause than the tax.

While it is also true the Romans had a desire to win over the 2000 year treasury of the temple - the war itself was solely a result of the requirement to place a statue of worship in the temple, as was the requirement in all of Rome's conquered nations. That the Jews could have been excused this law among all the rest of the nations spelled a disaster waiting to happen.

This accounts for Josephus' negotiations to stop the war, Rome even offering acceptance if the statue was placed outside the actual temple itself - and the jews refusing this. The war was officially initiated when Eleazar's warriors slew 600 Romans guarding the temple, along with many Jews from the Peace Party [a Leftist group], and declared all sacrifices ceased - this was in effect a declaration of war.

The topic of Eusibius is a hot one, but there is a factor here which inclines with it. In the 30's CE - there was a great upheaval arising subsequent to the pagan and immoral activities of Rome and Greece. At this time, the only voices which should be heard from jews is that of the dislodgement of Rome - yet we find no such factors in the Gospels. The notion of focusng on hapless, rowdy money changers doing what they always did for 2000 years, and being in total compliance of the law, as opposed issue # 1 - Rome - comes across like a fake implanting by Rome itself, and a dead give away.

This is further compounded with the castigating and villifying of the Jews for rejecting a divine human as Messiah - this is a Roman/European, not a Jewish tradition. The whole point is, when talking about Jews in Judea, one must either see it from the jewish persective - or else consider their history and laws which were their first priority. Here, when in Rome do as the Romans do - does not apply.