During "...that Passover week of Anno Domini 33..." (p. 58):
"...Jerusalem of the Herodian kings and the Roman proconsulate crouched on its hills." (p. 59)
When, with inadequate preparation, I had to teach school pupils about the Bible, I dreaded questions that would reveal my ignorance but soon learned that a combination of familiarity and indifference means that Biblical stories are accepted without question.
Everyone knows that there is a King Herod in Jerusalem in one of the Nativity stories. Everyone knows that there is a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, in Jerusalem in the Passion stories. Does it follow that the Romans conquered Palestine during Jesus' life-time and, if so, why do we not read about this in the Gospels? How many people ask such questions? The answers are that that does not follow, that the Romans had conquered Palestine earlier, that they had ruled through Herod and that, after that Herod's death, the situation became extremely complicated, as shown in Luke 3:1-2. There is a fairy-tale atmosphere about Matthew 2 with an evil king in the city but no mention of the Roman occupation or of the wider geopolitical context.
Poul Anderson frequently summarizes such complicated political situations in his works. However, in this novel, Jerusalem, AD 33, is merely a rendezvous point for time travelers. Jack Havig wears an acceptable Arab costume but is unusually tall with a twentieth century haircut and "...Nordic features." (p. 62) He hopes that the locals will regard him as a visiting foreigner whereas fellow time travelers will recognize him as one of them. And so it is.
"'Es tu peregrinator temporis?'" (ibid.)
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, the Romans conquered Syro/Palestine when Pompey the Great abolished the Seleucid kingdom of Syria and placed its territories under Roman rule. After trying to rule thru Hasmonean client kings, Rome made Herod the Great its client king of Judae, Idumaea, and Samaria (with other territories added later). And afterwards..., but I don't need to repeat what you already know!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not well-informed on the details but the situation sure got complicated later.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Oops! I guess I could have continued summarizing the messy politics of that time! Including the intrigues of the Jewish Sanhedrin in Rome itself.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You could indeed. I do not know about the Sanhedrin's intrigues in Rome.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Well, the Sanhedrin was often at loggerheads with some of the Procurators who took over as governors of Judae/Samaria after Archelaus was deposed by Augustus in AD 6. That led them to sending delegations to complain to the Emperor about their beefs with the governors. And that in turn had to include lobbying influential persons at the Imperial court who would, some of them, put in a good word for the Sanhedrin. And I would not be surprised if that included spreading around some gold in bribes. Result: intrigues and skulduggery!
Ad astra! Sean
Rome often started out using client kings as quasi-puppets -- what the British Empire called "indirect rule", as in Northern Nigeria or much of India -- but tended to introduce provinces run by Roman governors later.
However, note that even then local communities often had a very high degree of local autonomy. The Empire was, in its more developed areas, sort of a federation of city-states; the Romans introduced cities where they hadn't existed before (as in Britannia, for example) and tried to get the local elites, or Roman settlers or mingles of the two, to imitate the urban-centered oligarchic local forms of government they were familiar with, and the Classical culture that was associated with that.
Karor, Mr. Stirling!
Because cities were so useful, convenient, and given Roman waterworks and standards of hygiene, comfortable to live in.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment