Agree that there was tension, but it wasn’t exactly a religious tension. It was more political and related to taxation. Shocking, I know!
It was also clear that many Jews felt that their Messiah would be a military/political leader that would free them from the “oppression” that was Rome. So I won’t disagree that there was a perception of “religious” tensions; but I think the real source was related political power far more than anything really relating to religion.
And Rome rightly saw that the Jewish leaders tied their “political” power center to Jerusalem and their temple. I know that Romans didn’t exactly separate politics and religion; so viewing the destruction of the temple would be very difficult to view as being purely political.
I agree with all you say, except the claim that it wasn’t religious. It wasn’t only religious to be sure. My understanding is that trying to separate religion from politics and community really relies on modern categories.
Religion(s) for the Romans was about making the right “patronage” offerings to the gods. It wasn’t at all about moral behavior, which was the domain of philosophy.
For the Jews, too, at least a lot of the ones in the Palestine area, there was no separation. This was before rabbinic judaism separated torah study and practice from politics, a separation which was required after the destruction of the temple and any kind of “jewish state.”
There was a lot of tension during Jesus’ time. “Messiah” (anointed) was the word the Israelites used to describe their kings. (You can read about the anointment of King David in the Bible.) A lot of Israelites were looking for a Messiah to free them of the Roman yoke. Rome routinely executed wanna-be messiahs as terrorists and insurgents. Despite the take in the New Testament, Jesus’ execution by Rome was an ordinary and expected outcome of people calling him “messiah”.
IIRC, there is extra-Biblical support that Pilate didn’t want to execute Jesus, but did so to partially appease the Jewish religious leaders and prevent what appeared to be a potential riot if that didn’t happen.
I had thought the only non Christian source on Jesus’ execution was the line by Josephus, which is still suspected of later christian tampering.
And the earliest extant christian writings are in the bible itself, dating to 50 to 100 CE.
So id think any extra biblical writing on pontius pilate would be written later, by sources with other interests in blaming or not blaming roman compared to jewish authorities for jesus’ death and therefore be compromised from an historical accuracy standpoint.
Well, it’s not just me you’re disagreeing with, then. It’s pretty much all of the experts, aside from those who have only been trained to reinforce their own world-view.
I also read from history textbooks that the Abrahamic religions had polytheistic roots.
If I were a believer, I wouldn’t be offended. I don’t think the major Abrahamic religions deny it either. It’s basically like “yeah our ancestors believed in many gods until they didn’t. God is the true god because (insert reasons here).”
And that’s just nonsense. That’s like saying that we jail, execute, and assassinate terrorists to appease [insert random minority group here]. The Romans executed lots of messiahs, or, at least, Israelites who claimed to be messiahs or whose followers claimed they were messiahs. Because “Messiah” was understood in ancient Israel to mean the return of the legitimate kingship, who would have God’s blessing to lead the Israelites in military victory over the Roman overlords.
Messiah meant “military insurgent leader”. It was only later, after the Jews actually rose under bar Kochba, lost, and were exiled from Jerusalem, that the idea arise that the Messiah might be some sort of spiritual leader. I mean, maybe the followers of Jesus believed that (or maybe some of them did; most would have understood “messiah” in the ordinary way) but that’s sure as hell not what the Romans thought.
the ‘h’ is not silent 