Home
As I was listening to the New Testament read out loud, as a stream of narration instead of bits and pieces here and there, it struck me just how much Rome hung like a sword of Damocles over the regions of Syria, Judea, and Samaria in particular. (There might be more, but those are the regions I recall being mentioned).
The rulers are repeatedly being stated as being afraid of the Jews or wanting to gain their favor. The Jews, for their part, seemed ready to riot at the drop of a hat. If I had to guess, I'd say that the leaders of the synagogues and the appointed rulers like Pontius Pilate (as opposed to the Herodian kings/tetrarchs) had a Realistic* view of what would happen if Rome found them to be ungovernable, both to the ungovernable people and those who were supposed to govern. Meanwhile the people, whom the narrative says were zealous seemed to think (judging from the text, Romans in particular) that they had God's favor because of their works, and that God would deliver them like in times of old...not realizing that their rejection of Jesus and failure to repent, and subsequent "grafting in" of the gentiles, meant that they were pretty much on their own.
I'd say the religious leaders, based on the reading, were more in line with the provincial rulers than the people as a whole...and their main fervor seemed to be reserved for preserving quietude rather than the truth.
Of course, I say this as an amateur historian and dilettante theologian, so... caveat emptor, as the Romans would have said.
*Realistic in the mundane, philosophical sense
The rulers are repeatedly being stated as being afraid of the Jews or wanting to gain their favor. The Jews, for their part, seemed ready to riot at the drop of a hat. If I had to guess, I'd say that the leaders of the synagogues and the appointed rulers like Pontius Pilate (as opposed to the Herodian kings/tetrarchs) had a Realistic* view of what would happen if Rome found them to be ungovernable, both to the ungovernable people and those who were supposed to govern. Meanwhile the people, whom the narrative says were zealous seemed to think (judging from the text, Romans in particular) that they had God's favor because of their works, and that God would deliver them like in times of old...not realizing that their rejection of Jesus and failure to repent, and subsequent "grafting in" of the gentiles, meant that they were pretty much on their own.
I'd say the religious leaders, based on the reading, were more in line with the provincial rulers than the people as a whole...and their main fervor seemed to be reserved for preserving quietude rather than the truth.
Of course, I say this as an amateur historian and dilettante theologian, so... caveat emptor, as the Romans would have said.
*Realistic in the mundane, philosophical sense
