Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00349)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Etzion Becker <etvionbb@n...> 
wrote:
> The Romans never wanted to enter Palestine; couple of hundred years 
before
> that , the Jews rebelled against Greece, which conqured Palestine 
during
> Alexander the Great. The Jews were notorious as stubborn rebels, 
and what
> happened was that the descendants of the victors against Greece, 
started
> quarrelling over power gain.

I assume you are talking about the revolt of the Maccabees against 
Antiochus V. I remembered he was a Hellenizer, which spurred the 
revolt by conservative Jews, but did not remember that he was Greek. 
I will have to get some history books some day and re-read that.

> so the Romans went in, and
> never got out...

Maybe I am remembering wrong, but Pompey was killed in Egypt in 48 
BCE, which was long after Antiochus. And he could not have been 
invited in, since he battered down the gates of Jerusalem and his 
soldiers stomped around in the temple, irritating the priests. It 
was after that time that Palestine became a part of the Roman Empire.

> I was deeply touched by the
> way he managed to convey Jesus mood.

A remarkable number of Jews seem to be unaware that he was a Jew, 
since he had little influence on Judaism. His influence (albeit 
indirect) omn the pagan world was more marked, though.

It felt as if Jesus wanted to be
> crucified, and brought about all this episode upon himself *by 
force*.

He thought a miracle would happen and that he would become king if he 
could force the miracle by getting himself arrested. His deity would 
have a simple choice: make him king or watch him die. Bad play. 
Kaplan says for centuries thereafter Kabbalists warned their 
followers about those very kinds of delusions.

> Benevolent Romans? Hard to say.

Crossan argued that they were RELATIVELY more benevolent than the 
Persians, Greeks, Babylonians, etc. That is not to say that Gaiuus 
was Captain Nice.

It is true that in the first revolt 70 AD,
> the Romans fought only against those who rebelled

Well, yes, but they enslaved the rest, so the distinction is a minor 
one.

, but 60 years later there
> was another revolt against Rome, and then the Romans came ans 
sacked the
> Jews for good.

True, but Titus flattened Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in the 
70 revolt. Unless I am mistaken, Hadrian made it an offense 
punishable by death for any Jew to enter Jerusalem before the Bar 
Kochba revolt. Or maybe that was after. I need to re-read all that 
stuff. My memory mahy be slipping in my old (make that middle) age.

Anyway, you are using your time well. Any educated man should know 
something about that period in history.