The Provinces of the Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian. v. 2Mommsen, Theodor
History
The Provinces of the Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian. v. 2
Mommsen, Theodor
Roman provinces -- Administration; Rome -- History -- Empire, 30 B.C.-476 A.D.
The short season of suffering left behind it no outward consequences;
with the god his altars fell. But yet the traces of it remained on
both sides. The history, which is here being told, is that of an
increasing hatred between Jews and non-Jews, and in it the three years’
persecution of the Jews under Gaius marks a section and an advance.
The hatred of Jews and the Jew-hunts were as old as the Diaspora
itself; these privileged and autonomous Oriental communities within
the Hellenic could not but develop them as necessarily as the marsh
generates the malaria. But such a Jew-hunt as the Alexandrian of
the year 38, instigated by defective Hellenism and directed at once
by the supreme authority and by the low rabble, the older Greek and
Roman history has not to show. The far way from the evil desire of the
individual to the evil deed of the collective body was thus traversed,
and it was shown what those so disposed had to will and to do, and were
under circumstances also able to do. That this revelation was felt
also on the Jewish side, is not to be doubted, although we are not in
a position to adduce documentary evidence in support of it.[175] But
a far deeper impression than that of the Jew-hunt at Alexandria was
graven on the minds of the Jews by the statue of the god Gaius in the
Holy of Holies. The thing had been done once already; a like proceeding
of the king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, had been followed by the
rising of the Maccabees and the victorious restoration of the free
national state (iii. 64) {iii. 61.}. That Epiphanes--the Anti-Messiah
who ushers in the Messiah, as the prophet Daniel had, certainly after
the event, delineated him--was thenceforth to every Jew the prototype
of abomination; it was no matter of indifference, that the same
conception came to be with equal warrant attached to a Roman emperor,
or rather to the image of the Roman ruler in general. Since that
fateful edict the Jews never ceased to dread that another emperor might
issue a like command; and so far certainly with reason, as according to
the organisation of the Roman polity such an enactment depended solely
on the momentary pleasure of the ruler for the time. This Jewish hatred
of the worship of the emperor and of imperialism itself, is depicted
with glowing colours in the Apocalypse of John, for which, chiefly
on that account, Rome is the harlot of Babylon and the common enemy
of mankind.[176] Still less matter of indifference was the parallel,
which naturally suggested itself, of the consequences. Mattathias of
Modein had not been more than Judas the Galilean; the insurrection of
the patriots against the Syrian king was almost as hopeless as the
insurrection against the monster beyond the sea. Historical parallels
in practical application are dangerous elements of opposition; only too
rapidly does the structure of long years of wise government come to be
shaken.
[Sidenote: Claudius and the Jews.]
[Sidenote: Agrippa.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account