Hey Minimalist

[Minimalist]

And according to Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews, Antipas had JtheB killed for being a troublemaker AND notes the divorce/marriage and subsequent military movements BUT he does not connect the two events.

And yes, Judaea did well under Augustus and Tiberius and things only started to go down the toilet when Caligula ordered Publius Petronius to erect a statue of the emperor in the temple. Petronius was smart enough to dally until Caligula was killed but Caligula also withdrew certain exemptions the Jews had enjoyed and those were not restored.

But yes, in general, during the first third of the first century, this is pretty much on target.

[Godscreated]

Hey, Yahweh, it seems to be merely a bit of xtian gospel gloss. There is no ancient source which indicates any problem or even contact between Antipas and Pilate.

The fuckers are not above lying, you know.

Regardless of their positions the Jews despised the Romans as they did most all who occupied their lands, it only seems logical that Antipas resented Pilate for no other reason than what he represented. It's known that the Romans had no love for the Jews either, seems the possibility of dislike between the two is more likely than not.

GC

[Minimalist]

You should be careful with the word "logic," G-C. You believe in fucking fairy tales like talking snakes and world-covering floods.

Leave logic to people who can handle it.

[A Theist]

And according to Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews, Antipas had JtheB killed for being a troublemaker AND notes the divorce/marriage and subsequent military movements BUT he does not connect the two events.

And yes, Judaea did well under Augustus and Tiberius and things only started to go down the toilet when Caligula ordered Publius Petronius to erect a statue of the emperor in the temple. Petronius was smart enough to dally until Caligula was killed but Caligula also withdrew certain exemptions the Jews had enjoyed and those were not restored.

But yes, in general, during the first third of the first century, this is pretty much on target.

There seems to have been a lot going on at that time.
John the Baptist certainly disrupted the religious order and the traditions of the Pharisees with his preaching. There were also stirrings and unrest by groups of Jewish Zealots who would assassinate Roman collaborators . I can see where JtheB could have been feared as a troublemaker at the time, especially when he criticized the leaders of the established religious order and also against Antipas' marriage to Herodius, probably being the last straw.

Caligula was sadistic and certainly possessed traits of a socio-path. For Caligula, being Emperor was one big party and he had no qualms about using his position for corruption and to commit murder on a whim. I would think that he would top out as Rome's most evil and inept Emperor. Nero was bad and he was shrewed, but I don't think he compared to Caligula. It was also speculated that Caligula was so evil because his Uncle, the Roman Emperor Tiberius, had not only sexually molested him, but also had murdered Caligula's father and other members of his family. Caligula experienced all this as a youth.

[CapnAwesome]

A Theist and Min are agreeing and even complimenting each other.

The end is surely near.

[Minimalist]

Must be one of them fucking miracles, huh?

Caligula was sadistic and certainly possessed traits of a socio-path.

Caligula, Herod the Great and Nero have one thing in common. The only writings we have about them are by their enemies. In all 3 cases, these were popular leaders who had the backing of the commons but either quickly lost (Nero and Caligula) or never had (Herod) the support of the nobility.

There were no popular rebellions against any of them. In fact, when Herod died there were revolts against his sons taking over for him and they had to be installed at the point of a sword. The Caesars of the Julio-Claudian dynasty understood that they needed to keep the city mob happy and they did so through bread and circuses. But they got their money from the upper classes and the provinces. Herod seems to have had the benefit of the lower classes supporting him because his construction projects employed great numbers and made them less dependent on the nobility.

So, when ancient historians write stuff about Caligula screwing his sister or making his horse a senator I recall that these calumnies are being written by members of the class that Caligula was demanding money from. Could they be true? Yes. Could they be fictitious. You bet your ass. There is no way to know.

[A Theist]

A Theist and Min are agreeing and even complimenting each other.

The end is surely near.

Ha! Who'da thunk it! So there's a God after all!

[Minimalist]

He was also portrayed as an individual who had no love for the Jews and even less patience for their religious customs.

I'd like to backtrack a moment to this point you raised. There is a bit of a recurrent theme in Greco-Roman thinking. Antiochus IV was the Hellenistic king of Seleucid Empire. He is blamed in the bible for desecrating the temple.

When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery. ”

— 2 Maccabees 5:11–14

Those numbers are, of course, total bullshit since the city at this time had no where near the water supply needed for a population anywhere near that large.

To consolidate his empire and strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to side with the Hellenized Jews by outlawing Jewish religious rites and traditions kept by observant Jews and by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god (2 Maccabees 6:1–12). This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree. Because of the resistance, the city was destroyed, many were slaughtered, and a military Greek citadel called the Acra was established.[7]

The tendency of a Greco-Roman elite to regard the jews as primitive barbarians thus far pre-dates, Pilate.

[A Theist]

Must be one of them fucking miracles, huh?

Caligula was sadistic and certainly possessed traits of a socio-path.

Caligula, Herod the Great and Nero have one thing in common. The only writings we have about them are by their enemies. In all 3 cases, these were popular leaders who had the backing of the commons but either quickly lost (Nero and Caligula) or never had (Herod) the support of the nobility.

There were no popular rebellions against any of them. In fact, when Herod died there were revolts against his sons taking over for him and they had to be installed at the point of a sword. The Caesars of the Julio-Claudian dynasty understood that they needed to keep the city mob happy and they did so through bread and circuses. But they got their money from the upper classes and the provinces. Herod seems to have had the benefit of the lower classes supporting him because his construction projects employed great numbers and made them less dependent on the nobility.

So, when ancient historians write stuff about Caligula screwing his sister or making his horse a senator I recall that these calumnies are being written by members of the class that Caligula was demanding money from. Could they be true? Yes. Could they be fictitious. You bet your ass. There is no way to know.

Could they be true? Yes. Could they be fictitious. You bet your ass. There is no way to know.

Still a pretty good bet though given Caligula's continual feuding with the Senate. Also found this on Wikipedia which bolsters your contention that Caligula enjoyed the support of the "commons"...

Public reform:

In AD 38, Caligula focused his attention on political and public reform. He published the accounts of public funds, which had not been made public during the reign of Tiberius. He aided those who lost property in fires, abolished certain taxes, and gave out prizes to the public at gymnastic events. He allowed new members into the equestrian and senatorial orders.

Perhaps most significantly, he restored the practice of democratic elections. Cassius Dio said that this act "though delighting the rabble, grieved the sensible, who stopped to reflect, that if the offices should fall once more into the hands of the many ... many disasters would result".
During the same year, though, Caligula was criticized for executing people without full trials and for forcing his helper Macro to commit suicide.

...certainly enough to piss off the Roman aristocracy.

---

He was also portrayed as an individual who had no love for the Jews and even less patience for their religious customs.

I'd like to backtrack a moment to this point you raised. There is a bit of a recurrent theme in Greco-Roman thinking. Antiochus IV was the Hellenistic king of Seleucid Empire. He is blamed in the bible for desecrating the temple.

When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery. ”

— 2 Maccabees 5:11–14

Those numbers are, of course, total bullshit since the city at this time had no where near the water supply needed for a population anywhere near that large.

To consolidate his empire and strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to side with the Hellenized Jews by outlawing Jewish religious rites and traditions kept by observant Jews and by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god (2 Maccabees 6:1–12). This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree. Because of the resistance, the city was destroyed, many were slaughtered, and a military Greek citadel called the Acra was established.[7]

The tendency of a Greco-Roman elite to regard the jews as primitive barbarians thus far pre-dates, Pilate.

The tendency of a Greco-Roman elite to regard the jews as primitive barbarians thus far pre-dates, Pilate.

But didn't the Greco elite regard all conquered people that way? I know that Pilate certainly regarded the Jews that way but didn't Rome offer the nations they conquered to become Roman allies as well as becoming Roman citizens? I don't recall the Greeks doing that.

[Minimalist]

Not that I am necessarily recommending it but a consistent theme of Titus Livy's "The Early History of Rome" shows that there was a persistent feud between the patricians and the plebians quite nearly from the start of the republic through the imperial period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seces..._in_494_BC

This was sort of an ingrained problem that Rome never really solved.

---

But didn't the Greco elite regard all conquered people that way?

Certainly not. The Romans were almost in awe of the Greeks. At the end of the Second Punic War the Romans still found themselves involved in a war with Macedonia and the Romans pursued that war across Greece.
Their commander, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, acted thusly.

In 196 BC Flamininus appeared at the Isthmian Games in Corinth and proclaimed the freedom of the Greek states. He was fluent in Greek and was a great admirer of Greek culture, and the Greeks hailed him as their liberator; they minted coins with his portrait, and in some cities he was deified.

The Romans kept trying to extricate themselves from Greek affairs but somehow kept getting pulled back in by one faction or another for 50 years. Finally, in 146, Lucius Mummius sacked, burned and leveled Corinth and the message he sent was "ALLRIGHT. ENOUGH OF YOUR BULLSHIT." But by this time the Roman aristocracy was speaking Greek and Hellenic slaves and freedmen were flooding into Italy.

So, it sort of depended on your background. The Romans regarded the Gauls as hairy barbarians but the Greeks were on the A-List.


Now, the Greeks did tend to regard anyone who was not a Greek as a barbarian....although Alexander the Great was generally quite magnanimous to the Persians. But the Greeks could surely see that the ability to speak Greek or carve a statue did them little good when the Roman manipular legion demolished their vaunted phalanx. So, they could be snooty but they were still conquered.