Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jewish Revolt
#31
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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:

Quote: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
Jaime
Reply
#32
Quote: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.

Quote:does Josephus state the country was ruined?
There's archaeological evidence, not unlike the evidence for the impoverishment of Italy prior to the Gracchan reforms. At the beginning of the first century, there were many small farms, a fair number of middle class farms, and a small number of large farms. In two generations, the middle class farms disappear, there are less small farms, and the large latifundia become bigger. The peasants, in other words, become dependent on the large landowners. They may have replaced the peasants with slaves.

I read this many years ago in a book on the Roman economy, but don't remember the details.

Quote:are you saying that the Zealot movement was a response to Nero's ruinous exactions after the Great Fire?
Not exactly. I think there was already a movement, called the Sicarians (Judas the Galilean). Josephus blames this "fourth school of Jewish thought" for the fall of Jerusalem. However, the main actors in the late sixties are not the Sicarians, but the Zealots, who are not mentioned before the sixties. Was there a rift in this movement? In any case, the last years of Nero were a kind of catalysator. In that sense, the Zealot movement (whatever its origin) was a response to events in Rome.

The main point is that, IIRC, Josephus does not use the word "Zealot" prior to the sixties. The only Zealot I know in the first half of the first century, is Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve. What kind of "fanatic" he was, we don't know. There's no need to assume violence.

Quote:I can't see how the [Zealot] movement can be construed as being nationalist.
I agree. If I said so, I was mistaken.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#33
Theodosius, this man was almost the sole reason why Judaea revolted :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gessius_Florus

You are right that the zealots and Siccarii bands which turned Jerusalem into a blood soaked city before and whilst the Romans sieged it were a main cause of the Judaean revolt failing. The national (Jewish) feelings of these groups are uncertain.
Thousands were slain by Vespasianus' indiscriminate terror offensive before Jerusalem was attacked by Titus. The entire idea of a nationalist movement is in my honest opinion an Israeli invention by amongst others Yadin who excavated Masada. The Jews did want to be free, and have their own rulers, even might have wanted to have a socius status towards Rome itself, but nationalism is a strange word to express what the Judaean rebels might have felt.

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply
#34
Quote:There's archaeological evidence, not unlike the evidence for the impoverishment of Italy prior to the Gracchan reforms.
I see. I was just curious if Josephus thought that economic hardship was a motivation for the movement. He seems to think they were little more than brigands which is hard to refute based on their actions.

Quote:The main point is that, IIRC, Josephus does not use the word "Zealot" prior to the sixties. The only Zealot I know in the first half of the first century, is Simon the Zealot, one of the Twelve. What kind of "fanatic" he was, we don't know. There's no need to assume violence.
So, we can't even be sure if the Zealot movement was primarily based in Galilee or if it was spread throughout Judea as well. If it was based in Galilee, which was not under Roman rule in the sixties, it's strange that they didn't direct their efforts against Agrippa II.

Quote:I agree. If I said so, I was mistaken.
I don't think you said so. I was reacting more to what Robert posted about Zealot atrocities.

Quote:Theodosius, this man was almost the sole reason why Judaea revolted :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gessius_Florus
Overall I'm not sure why Florus would have been seen as worse than some of the prior Prefects. In the past the Jews would send embassies to Rome to complain about maladministration of their province. Nero would have been more receptive to such embassies than Caligula. So, I wonder if an embassy was sent to complain against Florus. The Judeans showed great restraint in opposing Caligula's plans for the Temple which seems far more outrageous not just to Judeans but to Jews everywhere. At least Florus did not control the Temple or appoint the High Priest. Agrippa did.

Quote:You are right that the zealots and Siccarii bands which turned Jerusalem into a blood soaked city before and whilst the Romans sieged it were a main cause of the Judaean revolt failing.
I would go further and say that those bands caused the war to drag on. If the towns in the north were not garrisoned by them and had just submitted to Vespasian well before his approach they would have been spared. Although I believe Vespasian's terror campaign was a mistake for all sides.

Quote:The entire idea of a nationalist movement is in my honest opinion an Israeli invention by amongst others Yadin who excavated Masada.
That recent? I would've guessed it originated in the 19th century at the latest.

Quote:The Jews did want to be free, and have their own rulers, even might have wanted to have a socius status towards Rome itself, but nationalism is a strange word to express what the Judaean rebels might have felt.
Agreed. I believe the sentiments you descibe were widely subscribed to but I doubt they amounted to serious aspirations. To think that these sentiments were motivations for the Revolt sounds like mere romanticism. The Zealots were a minority who made no permanent alliances with any other group as far as we can tell.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Legions during the Jewish revolt L C Cinna 7 2,171 07-16-2005, 06:57 PM
Last Post: Johnny Shumate
  Jewish revolt 2 Anonymous 5 1,808 08-30-2001, 02:52 PM
Last Post: Anonymous
  Jewish revolt Anonymous 7 1,919 08-30-2001, 04:03 AM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: