12-01-2011, 08:06 AM
Quote:The Judeans had little cause to revolt.I cannot agree. King Herod had been able to raise about 19.3% taxes every year. That's excessive, but he spent it in Judaea. The people had to work hard, but there was economic growth. Rome did not change this (see Richard Duncan-Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy [1990] 189), but spent the money abroad. The country was ruined. From surveys, we learn that there were less mid-class farms, while big farms became bigger.
It's no coincidence that Hillel invented the prozbul in these years, and that so many texts in the gospels are about debts. By the mid-century, the country was ruined. The rise of the Zealot movement was a logical response.
Quote:It wasn't as if they were living under the oppressive Selueucids.About the Seleucids: how repressive is a tax of 360 talents for a whole country? One city, Leptis Magna, at the same time, paid the same amount. I know that Daniel, Polybius, and 1 and 2 Maccabees all have reasons to write unkindly about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but his reputation is now better than it used to be. You might be interested in P.F. Mittag's biography (review).
Quote:I don't think you could get the Sanhedrin to agree that the Romans were in any way benevolent.I think the members of the Sanhedrin did not object to Roman rule. They had sufficient land and income to pay taxes. It was the poor, who could no longer pay their mortgages, who were angry.
Quote:Direct Roman rule was actually preferred to living under any of the Herods.Only in 6. After the census of Quirinius, people revolted. After some time, in 27 if I recall correctly, they sent an embassy to Rome to ask for lower taxes. (Tacitus does not mention that they were granted.)
