April 1, 2020
Profanation Of The Temple: The Jewish Revolt Of 66 AD Uses God’s House As Last Ditch Defense Against Rome
The Roman garrison in Jerusalem was located at the Antonia Fortress, the adjoining building at the northwest corner of the Temple complex. The Temple complex was administered by Rome, not the Sanhedrin. To the Romans, the Temple guarded Jerusalem, while the Antonia Fortress guarded the Temple complex; "for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple". Only the Tabernacle was under the complete control of the Sanhedrin, off limits, on pain of death, to Gentiles, including the emperor.
The 66 AD Jewish Revolt against Roman administration in Judea and Roman oversight of Galilee-Perea was a catastrophic move for Jews not only in the affected areas of the revolt, but affected negatively the standing of Jews throughout the Roman Empire.* Roman subjects throughout the empire now viewed all Jews as no better than barbarians, accomplices with Rome’s enemies in the quest to extinguish ‘the light of the world’, thereby ushering in an age of decivilization. This article, however, does not venture into the politics of Jewish resistance against Rome in Judea/Galilee-Perea. This article will concentrate on but one highly contentious subject: What were the intentions of Rome towards the Temple in Jerusalem, and more specifically what was Rome’s intentions towards the Tabernacle, located in the center of the Temple complex, the rear portion of which is where God resides, called the Holy of Holies.
Two accounts exist regarding Rome’s intentions towards the Tabernacle, the first account being an eyewitness at the scene, the Jewish aristocratic rebel turned historian, Titus Flavius Josephus, the second account being a fragment attributed to the Roman historian Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, but located in a secondary source in the writings of the Christian writer Sulpicius Severus. We will first examine Josephus’ account from his work, The Wars of The Jews:
Titus’ intention, therefore Roman policy, is to save the Tabernacle despite the structure’s new function, that of a fort. Titus', we’re told, rationale being, "although the Jews should get upon that holy house, and fight us thence, yet ought we not to revenge ourselves on things that are inanimate, instead of the men themselves”.
Tacitus’ account, though shorter, is similar to Josephus’ in that Titus calls a council of his general officers to discuss the fate of the tabernacle:
It should be understood by the reader that this account is a fragment that is said, by most scholars, to come from Tacitus’ lost portion of the fifth book of his Histories. This article will not digress into a discourse as to whether portions of the fragment are forged, but will establish that the entire fragment is fraudulent.
Firstly, Titus would never had made the imbecilic observation that by destroying the Tabernacle Judaism and Christianity would be destroyed, “if the root [Judaism] were destroyed, the stock [Christianity] would easily perish.” Titus would have known from his own education that Judaism survived the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 BC, and this knowledge would have been transmitted to him by his Jewish allies, inclusive of Josephus and Herod Agrippa II.
Secondly, Josephus, Herod Agrippa II, and former Jewish rebels that crossed over to Titus, not to mention Jews throughout the Roman Empire, would have correctly assessed it was indeed time to vanquish an empire that wanted to vanquish them.
Thirdly, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Tabernacle (in fact, the destruction of the whole Temple complex) half a century earlier, a prediction Josephus and Herod Agrippa II would have impressed on Titus with the utmost urgency. So if Titus’ intention is to “perish” Christianity, the preservation of the Tabernacle is his greatest concern.
Fourthly, when Titus became the operational commander of suppressing the Jewish Revolt, replacing his father General Vespasian, he chose as his Chief of Staff an aristocratic Egyptian Jew who had close family connections to Judean aristocracy, Tiberius Julius Alexander, who when prefect of Egypt in 68 AD was involved in a Jewish revolt there. Attempting to mediate what had become a recalcitrant rebel Jewish leadership that refused to demobilize, Alexander sent two Roman legions into the Jewish section of Alexandria called Delta:
But at this time, when there were tumults in other places as well, the disorders among the Greeks and Jews became even more violent. The Alexandrines had once organized a public assembly to deliberate about an embassy to Nero, and a great number of Jews came flocking to the amphitheater.
When their adversaries saw them, they immediately cried out, and called them their enemies, and said they came as spies. Then they rushed out, and laid violent hands upon the Jews, and as for the rest, they were slain as they ran away. There were three men whom they caught and hauled along, to burn them alive.
At that moment, all the Jews came to defend them, and at first threw stones at the Greeks, but later they took lamps and rushed with violence into the theater, and threatened that they would burn the people to a man. They would certainly have done so. However, Tiberius Julius Alexander, the governor of the city, restrained their passions.
He did not begin to teach them wisdom by arms, but privately sent for the principal men, and convinced them to be quiet, and not provoke the Roman army against the Jews. But the seditious did not take the threat seriously, and reproached him for so uttering threats.
Because the governor now understood that those who were most riotous would not be pacified unless some great calamity would overtake them, he sent out the two Roman legions that were in the city, note together with 5,000 other soldiers, who had recently arrived from Libya, to punish the Jews. They were permitted not only to kill them, but to plunder them of what they had, and to set fire to their houses.
The soldiers rushed violently into that part of the city that was called Delta, where the Jewish people lived together, and did as they were ordered, though not without bloodshed on their own side too. For the Jews organized themselves, set those that were the best armed among them in the forefront, and offered resistance for a great while. But when once they were forced back, they were unmercifully and completely destroyed.
Some were caught in the open field, others forced into their houses, which were plundered and then set on fire. The Romans showed no mercy to the infants, had no regard for the aged, and went on in the slaughter of persons of every age until all the place was overflowed with blood, and 50,000 Jews lay dead. And the remainder would have perished as well, had they not put themselves at the mercy of Alexander. He felt pity and gave orders to the legionaries to retire.”
If Titus’ intention is to employ the most drastic punishments he can met out to the rebels and their sacred House, then the last Roman officer he wants for his Chief of Staff is a man (1) who will negotiate with fanatics still engaging in hostilities with Rome; or (2) who’s heart is affected by pleas of mercy from the enemy.
Fifthly, the immobilization of the Roman guard in Judea for three years while Jesus went about with His disciples performing what Rome termed agitation/insurrection is empirical proof of Jesus' divinity. Jesus and disciples were the only ones Roman governors in Judea refused to arrest for agitation.** That would be ten governors of Judea between 30 AD and the Jewish revolt of 66 AD:
Pontius Pilate 26–36 Roman Prefect
Marcellus 36–37 Roman Prefect
Marullus 37–41 4 Roman Prefect
Cuspius Fadus 44–46 Roman Procurator
Tiberius Julius Alexander 46–48 Roman Procurator
Ventidius Cumanus 48–52 Roman Procurator
Marcus Antonius Felix 52–60 Roman Procurator
Porcius Festus 60–62 2 Roman Procurator
Lucceius Albinus 62–64 Roman Procurator
Gessius Florus 64–66 Roman Procurator
These ten Roman governors neither arrested or accosted any of Jesus' disciples (nor the disciples' disciples), and Pilate didn't arrest Jesus,*** proving that the 'hands off Jesus and disciples policy' in Judea was Imperial policy, not the inexplicable ad hoc policies of ten Roman governors. As such, Titus would never have threatened the existence of Christianity when Christianity in Judea was protected by Rome.
Josephus describes an incident of this Imperial policy where a new Roman governor of Judea puts an end to an illegal Sanhedrin assembly that is executing Christians, instead of giving Rome's imprimatur for the assembly and allowing the executions to proceed:
Notice too that Jewish nobility are aghast that followers of Jesus are being executed. Why would this be? Why would they object to the execution of blasphemers who elevated Jesus to the position of Messiah? Why would they care if the Sanhedrin was an illegal assembly according to Rome, when this assembly can take advantage once and for all in exterminating the Christians.
Not all Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah moved to the new Christian sect, preferring to remain within their own traditions.
As such, we discern a fragment attributed to Tacitus that is a historically ludicrous forgery.
Steps leading up to the Antonia Fortress, from which Roman soldiers earlier had ran down to investigate the chaos taking place in the Temple courtyards. There they found Saul in imminent pain of stoning. Saul was arrested because Jews from Asia had falsely charged Saul with teaching, "...everyone everywhere against our people and our law", and bringing, "...Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” Saul wasn't arrested for proselytizing Jesus' ministry. The Roman soldiers took Saul into custody.
Regarding Point Four Above, Titus Chose For His Chief of Staff An Officer Whose Temperament In War Matched His
Titus Has Josephus Appeal To Rebel Leader John of Giscala:
Titus Appeals To John Of Giscala:
Josephus Explains How The Tabernacle Came To Destruction
And now, since Caesar was no way able to restrain the enthusiastic fury of the soldiers, and the fire proceeded on more and more, he went into the holy place of the temple, with his commanders, and saw it, with what was in it, which he found to be far superior to what the relations of foreigners contained, and not inferior to what we ourselves boasted of and believed about it. But as the flame had not as yet reached to its inward parts, but was still consuming the rooms that were about the holy house, and Titus supposing what the fact was, that the house itself might yet be saved, he came in haste and endeavored to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire, and gave order to Liberalius the centurion, and one of those spearmen that were about him, to beat the soldiers that were refractory with their staves, and to restrain them; yet were their passions too hard for the regards they had for Caesar, and the dread they had of him who forbade them, as was their hatred of the Jews, and a certain vehement inclination to fight them, too hard for them also. Moreover, the hope of plunder induced many to go on, as having this opinion, that all the places within were full of money, and as seeing that all round about it was made of gold. And besides, one of those that went into the place prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and threw the fire upon the hinges of the gate, in the dark; whereby the flame burst out from within the holy house itself immediately, when the commanders retired, and Caesar with them, and when nobody any longer forbade those that were without to set fire to it. And thus was the holy house burnt down, without Caesar's approbation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* But when the people of Antioch were informed that Titus was approaching, they were so glad at it, that they could not keep within their walls, but hasted away to give him the meeting; nay, they proceeded as far as thirty furlongs, and more, with that intention. These were not the men only, but a multitude of women also with their children did the same; and when they saw him coming up to them, they stood on both sides of the way, and stretched out their right hands, saluting him, and making all sorts of acclamations to him, and turned back together with him. They also, among all the acclamations they made to him, besought him all the way they went to eject the Jews out of their city; yet did not Titus at all yield to this their petition, but gave them the bare hearing of it quietly. However, the Jews were in a great deal of terrible fear, under the uncertainty they were in what his opinion was, and what he would do to them. For Titus did not stay at Antioch, but continued his progress immediately to Zeugma, which lies upon the Euphrates, whither came to him messengers from Vologeses king of Parthia, and brought him a crown of gold upon the victory he had gained over the Jews; which he accepted of, and feasted the king's messengers, and then came back to Antioch. And when the senate and people of Antioch earnestly entreated him to come upon their theater, where their whole multitude was assembled, and expected him, he complied with great humanity; but when they pressed him with much earnestness, and continually begged of him that he would eject the Jews out of their city, he gave them this very pertinent answer: "How can this be done, since that country of theirs, whither the Jews must be obliged then to retire, is destroyed, and no place will receive them besides?" Whereupon the people of Antioch, when they had failed of success in this their first request, made him a second; for they desired that he would order those tables of brass to be removed on which the Jews' privileges were engraven. However, Titus would not grant that neither, but permitted the Jews of Antioch to continue to enjoy the very same privileges in that city which they had before, and then departed for Egypt; and as he came to Jerusalem in his progress, and compared the melancholy condition he saw it then in, with the ancient glory of the city, and called to mind the greatness of its present ruins, as well as its ancient splendor, he could not but pity the destruction of the city, so far was he from boasting that so great and goodly a city as that was had been by him taken by force; nay, he frequently cursed those that had been the authors of their revolt, and had brought such a punishment upon the city; insomuch that it openly appeared that he did not desire that such a calamity as this punishment of theirs amounted to should be a demonstration of his courage. Yet was there no small quantity of the riches that had been in that city still found among its ruins, a great deal of which the Romans dug up; but the greatest part was discovered by those who were captives, and so they carried it away; I mean the gold and the silver, and the rest of that most precious furniture which the Jews had, and which the owners had treasured up under ground, against the uncertain fortunes of war.
** "Jesus would have represented a kind of activist and resister in Pontius Pilate's experience that he had been dealing with for years, and with varying degrees of success and effectiveness, obviously. Jesus would have been a blip on the screen of Pontius Pilate, because the unrest and the uprisings were so common, part of daily life for the Roman administration of Judea, that Jesus would have been seen, I think, as very little out of the ordinary." (Fast-forward to 49:00 minutes in Part 1 of the PBS Frontline documentary, From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians).
"Now I don't for a moment think that Pilate would have been worried that Jesus could have challenged the power of the emperor. That's not the point. The point is, any challenge to Roman authority...any challenge to the peace of Rome would have been met with a swift and violent response." (Fast-forward to 49:36 minutes in Part 1 of the PBS Frontline documentary, From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians).
Fast-forward to 37:10 minutes ending at 41:20 minutes in Part I of the Frontline documentary, for two additional New Testament academicians' accounts.
Notice that these New Testament academicians have contradicted themselves without realizing it, in that Pilate refused to initiate any reaction towards Jesus' agitation/insurrection, let alone "swiftly", and, along with the next nine governors of Judea, refused to react as Jesus' disciples kept up the agitation/insurrection soon after Jesus' resurrection.
Notice that these New Testament academicians have contradicted themselves without realizing it, in that Pilate refused to initiate any reaction towards Jesus' agitation/insurrection, let alone "swiftly", and, along with the next nine governors of Judea, refused to react as Jesus' disciples kept up the agitation/insurrection soon after Jesus' resurrection.
*** Jesus was brought to Pilate by the Sanhedrin after Jesus made it known He was about to die. Pilate did all he could to extricate himself from this dilemma, going so far as to send Jesus to Herod Antipas for adjudication.
Comments
Post a Comment