Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[rich]

I seem to recall something that Herod wasn't classified as a real Jew because of his lineage somewhere. Could be wrong tho. Can't remember where I read it.

[Minimalist]

You are absolutely right. Herod was an Arab. But Jewish by conversion of his ancestors....forced though it may have been.



http://www.maat.it/livello2-i/erode-i.htm

[kbs2244]

And never accepted by the Jews as a king because of that.
He was installed by the Romans, who did not understand the distinction.
He had the backing of the priestly class because he installed his own High Priest, who then gave out lower positions.
But the common man hated him.
It was not a peaceful time in the Levant.
Of course it has almost never been a peaceful time in the Levant.

[Minimalist]

Min,
You keep bringing up the "direct Roman rule" argument.
And you are correct.
But the Herods would not have been ruling with out the backing of the Romans.
And they were collecting some pretty stiff taxs to pay their Roman backers.
To the man on the street in Jerusalem the Herods equaled Romans.

kb, no society is ever all one thing or all another. Even in this country, 27% of people think Bush is doing a good job.

Two things are important to understand. First, the only histories we have of Herod were written by his enemies.

Second, Judaea thrived as part of an Imperial system and the Romans weren't the first. Archaeology shows marked material improvement under the Assyrians (Judaea was a vassal state until they got uppity and got smacked downand even then, they recovered) and the Persians (they learned their lesson and did not rebel.) They were caught in the crossfire between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids in the aftermath of the Persian period but seem to have managed to escape serious destruction.

The period between the Maccabaean revolt and the installation of Herod as king in 37 was a period of great bloodshed and turmoil. At one time or another the Nabateans, Parthians and Romans were interfering by backing rival claimants to the throne. Early Hasmonean kings, Aristobulus and John Hyrcanus did manage to extend "Jewish" territory to Galilee and Arabia through victorious campaigns as the Seleucid Empire disintegrated but they couldn't resolve the dynastic disputes within their own families. King Alexander Jannaeus is alleged to have crucified 800 Pharisees in front of their families (it's Josephus telling the tale so knock off a zero for his customary exaggeration. This was the age of bloodshed and ruin with the land being overrun by different conquerors, Jewish or not. This forms the back drop for this tablet.

But Herod's reign put an end to all that...no matter how much he was resented by the former ruling class in the temple for his alleged non-jewishness. Yes, they paid tribute to Rome. But after Actium the Romans were the guarantors of peace. Egypt, which under Cleopatra had kept casting covetous eyes at Canaan...(probably restrained only by Marc Antony's friendship for Herod) was gone. The Romans had 4 legions in Syria keeping an eye on the Parthians. The country was at peace.

Herod, while paying that tribute to Rome also managed to build the port of Caesarea, a number of palaces, aqueducts and the temple in Jerusalem, aside from roads, forts, etc. He would not have had the money or the time to complete these projects if there were serious outbreaks against his rule. The port, alone, contributed massively to the wealth of the kingdom and was one of the most brilliant economic successes in the history of the region.

So yeah, some people, probably the 'elite' who resented his power were resentful...but plenty of others were making money hand over fist either as merchants or even construction workers on his various projects. It's hard to imagine that they were very unhappy with Herod the Great.

[rich]

Yup - Herod sure was a likable person -

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhist ... _Great.asp

I especially like the bottom reference:

2)The Talmud relates the following story: Herod went and killed [most of] Rabbis. However he left Bavas ben Buta alive in order to use him as an adviser Herod put a crown of sharpened porcupine skin around his eyes, [and the sharp spines] blinded him.

[Minimalist]

I usually take what Aish says with a grain of salt but I can't argue with this line.

Herod will reigned as king of Judea from 37 BCE until his death in 4 BCE, a very long reign of 33 years, and in many ways a good period in terms of development of the country and social stability.

"Social stability" is the key phrase. Who was pulling the strings and who was having their strings pulled?

[kbs2244]

With a big enough hammer you can enforce “peace” just about anywhere.
Pax Romana, USSR, Yugoslavia.
It doesn’t mean the common guy always likes it though.

[Minimalist]

In almost every case in history, actual, serious revolts are not started by the commons but by a dis-enfranchised nobility or in more recent times, by middle class intellectuals. Sure from time to time a tax revolt would break out because villagers got pissed off. They rarely amounted to much.

You know what? No matter who was in charge, the common, peasant farmer, had a shitty life. And the powers that be did not really care.


I'm not so sure that they care today.

[kbs2244]

I would argue that the French, Russian and American revolutions were uprising of the common people.

[Minimalist]

You're not paying attention.

There was nothing "common" about the leadership of any of those.


France:

Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau (March 9, 1749 – April 2, 1791) was a French writer, popular orator and statesman. During the French Revolution, he was a moderate, favoring a constitutional monarchy built on the model of Great Britain. He unsuccessfully conducted secret negotiations with the French monarchy in an effort to reconcile it with the Revolution.

Danton was born at Arcis-sur-Aube in northeastern France, to a respectable though not wealthy family. He was given a good education, and he was launched in the career of an advocate at the Paris bar.

A poor youth, he was enabled to study law in Paris through a scholarship. He won admiration for his abilities, but his austerity and dedication isolated him from easy companionship. Returning to his native Arras, he practiced law and gained some reputation. He soon came under the influence of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theories of democracy and deism, and Robespierre’s emphasis on virtue—which in his mind meant civic morality—later earned him the epithet “the Incorruptible.” 2
Robespierre was elected to the States-General of 1789, and his influence in the Jacobin Club grew steadily until he became its leader (see Jacobins). In the National Constituent Assembly (June, 1789–Sept., 1791), he unsuccessfully championed democratic elections and successfully backed the law that made members of the Constituent Assembly ineligible to sit in the Legislative Assembly, which succeeded it.

Russia:

Born in Simbirsk (renamed Ulyanovsk after its most famous son), in the Russian Empire, Lenin was the son of Ilya Nikolaevich Ulyanov and Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova.[2] His father was a successful Russian official in public education who wanted democracy. The family was of mixed ethnicity, his ancestry being “Russian, Mordovian, Kalmyk, Jewish (see Blank family), Volgan German, and Swedish, and possibly others” according to biographer Dmitri Volkogonov.[3] Lenin was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

When Trotsky was nine, his father sent him to Odessa to be educated and he was enrolled in a historically German school, which became Russified during his years in Odessa, consequent to the Imperial government's policy of Russification.[3] As Deutscher points out in his biography, Odessa was then a bustling cosmopolitan port city, very unlike the typical Russian city of the time. This environment contributed to the development of the young man's international outlook.

Although it is stated in his autobiography My Life that he was never perfectly fluent in any language but Russian and Ukrainian, Raymond Molinier wrote that Trotsky spoke French fluently.[4]

America:

I'm sure you are aware that the leaders of the American Revolution tended to be wealthy landowners, merchants or lawyers.

Is it necessary to trot out biographies of Washington, Jefferson, John Hancock, John Adams, etc.

No doubt that the commons provided the muscle....but it was the elite that provided the leadership.

[kbs2244]

All true. And all good points.
But they were not Royalty.
And did not have the backing of other countries Royalty.
They may have been rich, influential, and used to running things.
And even might have something to gain in spite of their good positions under the current regime.
But they were still “common”
In spite of her uncommon money and uncommon good looks, Princess Dania was still “common.”
Some of the Jewish rabble rousers were true commoners. Men of the streets. Some were upset, displaced priests.
Some were religious zealots, and some were just egomaniacs. But none of them were royal.
What they had in common was a hatred of the Romans. And the feeling was mutual.
The Roman God/Emperors thought they were the ones who could decide who ruled where.
And the Jews thought only someone with a bloodline that went back to David could rule them.
It was a sure recipe for revolt and the big hammer.

[Minimalist]

But they were still “common”

There is common and then there is common. By a popular uprising you are trotting out the myth of angry peasants rising in revolt. That has probably happened also but I doubt with any long term success. Even in China, whch champions the myth of revolting peasants, they were led by Mao and Chou En Lai who were well educated.

As Socrates once observed, 'a disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building material is a house'. It takes organization and a degree of literacy which the average French or Russian peasant did not have nor did the average American frontiersman.

I'm curious as to what percentage of these populations that you think were educated at all? And then, whatever percentage that is, I suggest you cut it in half or more for ancient populations. Mythology aside, humans seem to require leadership.

[Forum Monk]

FWIW, here is the Herald Tribune's take on the resurrection stone.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/ ... 6stone.php

[Minimalist]

Just for the hell of it, I went through Josephus. There are a couple of mentions of a "Simon" but this one seems to be the only possible choice.

Unfortunately, this is Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter 10, 6 and takes place after Herod the Great's death. In fact, (curiously) the death blow against Simon is stuck not by Herod's boys but by the then Roman Praefect, Valerius Gratus. Gratus was the longest serving Roman Praefect in Judaea succeeding Annius Rufus and preceeding Pontius Pilate. Still, his term of office was from 15-26 and that sounds way too late to have been part of the disturbances which took place at the time of Herod's death in 4 BC. Anyway, FWIW.

6. There was also Simon, who had been a slave of Herod the king, but in other respects a comely person, of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else. He burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the king's houses in several places of the country, and utterly destroyed them, and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey; and he would have done greater things, unless care had been taken to repress him immediately; for Gratus, when he had joined himself to some Roman soldiers, took the forces he had with him, and met Simon, and after a great and a long fight, no small part of those that came from Perea, who were a disordered body of men, and fought rather in a bold than in a skillful manner, were destroyed; and although Simon had saved himself by flying away through a certain valley, yet Gratus overtook him, and cut off his head. The royal palace also at Amathus, by the river Jordan, was burnt down by a party of men that were got together, as were those belonging to Simon. And thus did a great and wild fury spread itself over the nation, because they had no king to keep the multitude in good order, and because those foreigners who came to reduce the seditious to sobriety did, on the contrary, set them more in a flame, because of the injuries they offered them, and the avaricious management of their affairs.

Hmm....a "king of the Jews" struck down by a Roman Praefect after starting a rebellion. Where have I heard this story before? It sounds quite familiar.

[Ishtar]

Good one, Min.