Jewish Revolt

[Theodosius the Great]

I am not saying that nothing happened. But if Antiochus IV merely visited Jerusalem, seized some money (as was his right), and entered the shrine, we have explained a lot. Many Jews must have experienced it as an outright disaster, but I am not so sure whether this says very much about Seleucid policy. What I am claiming is that there is much room for doubt.

Although I'm facinated with the subject I would think that by the first century the popular belief was that Antiochus was a religious oppressor. So, in their minds the Romans must have compared favorably in their general religious policy.

You might be interested in P.F. Mittag's biography (review).

Great review. But I'm not willing to fork over $300 to read the book :-(. I wish these scholarly books were available in e-format.

By the mid-century, the country was ruined. The rise of the Zealot movement was a logical response.

I'm curious, does Josephus state the country was ruined? I'm not able to find him placing any blame for the Revolt against Nero which, if true, seems strange given his reputation as a Flavian propogandist. I know Tacitus makes a general statement about the provinces being ruined by Nero's efforts to recover from the Great Fire of Rome.

And are you saying that the Zealot movement was a response to Nero's ruinous exactions after the Great Fire? If so, isn't that contrary to the traditional view that the movement was actually decades old by the time of the Revolt? I thought that the Jewish Prefect of Judea, Tiberius Alexander, had executed a number of Zealots some twenty years earlier and had a peaceful tenure as a result.

Tax farming was, if I recall correctly, not applied in these parts. That still doesn't exclude the possibility of fraud and corruption of course.

Indeed, corrupt govenors were a problem inherited from Republican times. But we always hear of governors being brought to trial for extortion in both periods including under Nero. In Tacitus, Annuls 14.46, he says: During the same consulship, Tarquitius Priscus was convicted of extortion on the prosecution of the Bithynians, to the great joy of the senators, who remembered that he had impeached Statilius, his own pro-consul.

In fact, Nero seems to have made curbing corruption in the provinces a high priority.
Here's an excerpt from Tacitus, The Annals, book 13, 51 on Nero:

the emperor issued an edict that the regulations about every branch of the public revenue, which had hitherto been kept secret, should be published; that claims which had been dropped should not be revived after a year; that the praetor at Rome, the propraetor or proconsul in the provinces, should give judicial precedence to all cases against the collectors; that the soldiers should retain their immunities except when they traded for profit, with other very equitable arrangements, which for a short time were maintained and were subsequently disregarded.

So, if the Zealot movement was decades old then it seems odd that it should find Nero particularly onerous up until after the Great Fire in late 64 at least.

I can't see how the movement can be construed as being nationalist. Although they were anti-Roman they were every bit against anyone who didn't agree with them. And their targeting of Greek communities hints at outright xenophobia.

~Theo