Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 11-05-2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's more likely, though, that if Jesus was crucified, it was for stirring up shit at the Termple during Passover, and making himself a potential threat to the peace.

Wouldn't that have fallen under the charge of sedition?

show_no_mercy · 11-05-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I am confused.

In 19 BCE Herod in Roman Jerusalem builds the largest temple on the planet. Is that not evidence of very good relationships with Rome?

66 CE Jewish wars start.

Were the Romans hated before then? Or is this all reading back stuff? What was Jerusalem like in the 30s? If one governor was heavy handed, is that enough, or is that also made up to create a reason for the Jewish wars?

Yes taliban like groups may have hated Rome - Death to America stuff. But the reality?

I don't see the confusion. The Romans took over what was essentially the only time in history (prior to 1948) where there was an identifiable "Israel" (read: Judah) as pretty much its own entity. The Hasmoneans freed the Jews from Greek rule, humiliated the Samaritans, and was virtually independent. This all ended when Rome took over the area c. 49 CE IIRC. Herod was still a Roman puppet, and Rome probably profitted from the large temple financially/politically just as much as Jews benefitted from it religiously.

Don't forget that c. 6 CE the Zealots start gaining clout and revolted against Quirinius. Herod's temple didn't do anything to stem that tide.

aa5874 · 11-05-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If Jesus was crucified, it was for some perceived crime against the Roman state. That's the only reason the Romans used crucifixion in the provinces. Mark's account is irrelevant, as is his apology for Pilate. He made it up. The trial before the Sanhedrin is fictional. Not only is it riddled with factual and procedural errors, Mark has Jesus being convicted for blasphemy for saying something that was not blasphemous under Jewish law. It was not blasphemy to say you were the Messiah. The Messiah wasn't God in Jewish expectation, and it was no Jewish crime to think or say it was you.

The Romans also didn't give two shits about whether someone had committed Jewish blasphemy and certainly didn't crucify people for it.

The ironic thing is that, while claiming to be the "king of the Jews" (i.e. the Messiah) was no crime under Jewish law, it could have easily been construed as a crime by the Romans, not because of any religious implications, but because it was a challenge to Roman authority.

It's more likely, though, that if Jesus was crucified, it was for stirring up shit at the Termple during Passover, and making himself a potential threat to the peace. The Romans were especially paranoid about riots during Passover -- a time when all the bumpkins flooded into Jerusalem from the country and the Romans were hugely outnumbered -- so they didn't fuck around if somebody looked like they were even thinking about lighting the powder keg.

Once you claim that the blasphemy accusation was made up, then equally it can be claimed that the crucifixion and the clearing of the Temple by Jesus were also made up.

Based on the NT, Jesus met wirh

Clivedurdle · 11-05-2009, 09:31 AM

But this is what is so daft!

200 years after the death of Archimedes in Syracuse, there really isn't a Rome over here and a Greece over there. It is all local difficulties between various groupings with different levels of autonomy and relationships to the Pax Romana or the Persians.

Jerusalem was a backwater - Rome, Alexandria and the Greek cities were far more significant.

For example, that bloke mentioned by Paul..

Quote:

Nabataean

Main

people
member of a people of ancient Arabia whose settlements lay in the borderlands between Syria and Arabia, from the Euphrates River to the Red Sea. Little is known about them before 312 bc, when they were unsuccessfully attacked by Demetrius I Poliorcetes, king of Macedonia, in their mountain fortress of Petra south of the Dead Sea. Their monopoly on the rich caravan trade that passed from the Arabian interior to the coast was the chief source of their prosperity.

As the Seleucid kingdom grew weaker in the 2nd century bc, the Nabataean kingdom increased in strength and extended its frontiers to the north and east and probably to the south along the eastern coast of the Red Sea. The Nabataeans occupied Ḥawrān, and shortly after 85 bc their king Aretas III ruled Damascus and Coele Syria (Lebanon). Upon the Roman general Pompey’s entry into Palestine (63 bc), Aretas became a Roman vassal, retaining Damascus and his other conquests; Damascus, however, was later annexed by the Roman emperor Nero (reigned ad 54–68).

The final period of Nabataean history was one of peaceful prosperity as allies of Rome. Hellenistic influences may be traced in the royal coinage and in the rock-cut architecture at Petra. When the Roman emperor Trajan annexed the kingdom (ad 105–106) and set up the new province of Arabia, Bostra (Bozrah), east of the Jordan River, was chosen in place of Petra as the provincial capital.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1246/Nabataean

show_no_mercy · 11-05-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Jerusalem was a backwater - Rome, Alexandria and the Greek cities were far more significant.

I don't remember exactly, but ancient Palestine was a relatively major trading route or military vantage point between Europe and India. I mean, if it was just some backwater, why would the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc. all have interest in that area over the millenia?

bacht · 11-05-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Jerusalem was a backwater - Rome, Alexandria and the Greek cities were far more significant.

I don't remember exactly, but ancient Palestine was a relatively major trading route or military vantage point between Europe and India. I mean, if it was just some backwater, why would the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc. all have interest in that area over the millenia?

Right, if you consider greater Palestine including Syria then the Romans would be very interested in securing territory so close to the Parthians in the Euphrates and Tigris basins. In pre-exilic times I believe there was a major trade route along the coast up to Phoenicia as well as inland routes following the Jordan system up to Damascus.

jgoodguy · 11-05-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I don't remember exactly, but ancient Palestine was a relatively major trading route or military vantage point between Europe and India. I mean, if it was just some backwater, why would the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc. all have interest in that area over the millenia?

Right, if you consider greater Palestine including Syria then the Romans would be very interested in securing territory so close to the Parthians in the Euphrates and Tigris basins. In pre-exilic times I believe there was a major trade route along the coast up to Phoenicia as well as inland routes following the Jordan system up to Damascus.

The importance would be trade routes and invasion routes for several thousand years. It is the land route from Africa and Asia Minor to Europe. Whoever controls it controls the trade and has a military advantage. That does not make it a cultural or an economic powerhouse when the control is Rome, Egypt or other external power.

bacht · 11-05-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Right, if you consider greater Palestine including Syria then the Romans would be very interested in securing territory so close to the Parthians in the Euphrates and Tigris basins. In pre-exilic times I believe there was a major trade route along the coast up to Phoenicia as well as inland routes following the Jordan system up to Damascus.

The importance would be trade routes and invasion routes for several thousand years. It is the land route from Africa and Asia Minor to Europe. Whoever controls it controls the trade and has a military advantage. That does not make it a cultural or an economic powerhouse when the control is Rome, Egypt or other external power.

Sure, Palestine was a crossroads area, but not really a source of innovation, unless you count Jewish monolatry/monotheism.

Clivedurdle · 11-05-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Jewish monolatry/monotheism

Imports - three versions, an egyptian one, a Platonic one, a Zarathustran one. What was that about trade and invasion routes?

storytime · 11-05-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Why were the Jewish leaders envious of Jesus? They said to one another that Jesus was drawing all the Jewish people to himself. Did the Jewish leaders then fear losing their place of authority at Jerusalem should Caesar catch wind of the popularity of Jesus? Might Caesar replace the Pharisees and Sadducees with Jesus as 'king of the Jews'? Did these men in power keep the truth of scriptures from the Jewish people? If so, what truth? Why were so many Jews believing Jesus?

The Jewish crowd declared "we have a law". Meaning what law? The law against blasphemy (speaking against God) which carried the death penalty?

The Jewish crowd declared "we have no king but Caesar". Meaning what? Were the Jews simply pacifying the reality in knowing they were subject to Caesars power and therewith showing loyalty to Rome?

Jesus evidently interpreted his Jewish scriptures differently than the existing Jewish leadership. The interpretation of Jesus would have the Pharisees (sons of the devil) cast out and the legitimate (as Jesus saw it) re-established.

John the Baptist was supposedly executed by Herod Antipas (Mark ch 6). If there's any truth in the Jesus story the leaders in Jerusalem would have feared either an insurrection or punishment from Rome for harboring a dangerous man. The idea that Jesus threatened the existing power structure is a fanciful gloss.

There was no "hidden truth" from the rank and file. The temple leaders didn't have a monopoly on scripture: there were variations in Qumran as well as the widely circulated Septuagint, not to mention the different schools of thought represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also the diaspora covered a huge area stretching from the Persian Gulf to Gibraltar. Judean artistocrats could only dream of controlling such a numerous and diverse people.

The temple leaders didn't have a monopoly on scripture? That's really hard to believe considering how the strictness of Jewish law would have put fear in people. Speculating on what the situation would have been in those days, I can see the temple leaders keeping their little secrets of scriptures that they thought the regular lay people did not need to know. And lay people listened because they were not allowed to speak, being they were ignorant due to lack of education in the scriptures. Besides, God appointed priests to be teachers, so the ignorant lay people could follow their instructions. Isn't that the way the OT shows how the governance of the people was established, in the headas priests and tail as the lay people?

Maybe the Judean Jewish artistocrats were not so much desiring control among their diverse people of Israel, but instead desired to hold onto Jerusalem as the place where all Jews should come once a year to worship God. Something about this Jerusalem devotion is mentioned as "and if Jews would not come up from Egypt, they would receive no rain."

Herod executed John. Why would he not have executed Jesus? Herod had the ways and means at his disposal, so that is why Pilate threw Jesus to the dogs, so to speak. And, I see no reason why Rome would have interferred with Jewish religious law. Jesus was, after all, condemned by his Jewish brethren, not by Romans.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.