12-01-2011, 05:58 AM
Quote:They could certainly hope for such an ideal, but what they tended to get was a corrupt Roman prefect or procurator who could not keep his hands of the temple treasury (Josephus cites plenty of those)
You may have misread my statement. I said that it was the most ideal arrangement that could possibly be hoped for (i.e. practically speaking). There were few attractive alternatives. A Jewish client-king arrangement was unpopular. There's no Persian Empire to turn to. So, the best foreigners to live under were the Romans who showed great accomodation when compared to other provinces.
And the Temple treasury was often used for secular building projects in the past. That was not an issue. It wasn't sacrilege to do so. I think the way it was mishandled by the procurators was what caused problems.
And taxes weren't so high. The problem was corrupt tax collectors who took in far more than what the Romans asked for. Now that may not have been evident to the man on the street but it is a very important distinction to make. So, tax rates were not an issue.
If anything, I think the Romans did not intervene enough to protect freedom of Jewish worship or to protect the provincials from extortion. That may have prevented the factions from warring with one another.
The whole event really was a civil war that the Romans just got caught up in. At least, that's my understanding which you're free to correct, of course.
Direct Roman rule was actually preferred to living under any of the Herods.
~Theo
Jaime
