2/15 Lecture

Roman Jerusalem/ Herodian Jerusalem/ Jesus' Jerusalem


-Hasmoneans defeated by Roman general Pompey
-Roman rule in Palestine began in 63 BCE
-Idumean Antipater installed as procurator; sons installed as local rulers (Herod in Galilee): Romans chose a family from Idumea because since they were forcibly "Judaized" during the Hasmonean period, they'd be more sympathetic to Roman rule
-Romans install Herod as king of Judea in 40 BCE


Herod "The Great"
-King of the Jews from 37 to 4 BCE
-paranoid and impulsive
-effective for Rome, but hated by the Jews
-best known for massive building projects: created jobs for the Jewish people
-2nd Temple was expanded by Herod--also referred to as the 3rd Temple
     -Roman influences
     -Area: >172,000 square yards
     -retaining walls towered 80 ft above street
-built Herodian theater at Caesarea: it was okay to name after Caesar because Caesarea was away from Jerusalem
-Herodian port at Caearea: artificial port
-Herodion: Herod's palace and fortress
-Was Herod a good king or bad king?
     -Accommodated the Jews: did not defile Temple, allowed Jews to select their High Priest, offered generous relief during famine, put inanimate objects on coins, avoided building pagan temples in Jewish areas, employed numerous Jewish workers as builders
     -but Jews always hated him, worked for romans, and was an impulsive dictator


Jesus' Jerusalem
-Christians believe that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah
-BUT, there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus


Herod was hated by the Jews and is recorded as an evil King in the Hebrew Bible. However, he was sensitive to the Jewish traditions as well as submissive to the Romans that put him in power. He also created a lot of jobs for the Jewish people, and Jerusalem, under his reign, prospered. Thus, from a historical and unbiased point of view, Herod was a politically adept king. 


Also, as a Christian, I believe in the existence of God even without any historical or archaeological evidence. However, many of the non-religious scholars believe that Jesus was a prophet, rabbi, and teacher. What's hard to understand for me is how can scholars believe that Jesus really existed as some kind of a moral teacher that spread the "good news" but at the same time completely disregard what Jesus' existence embodied. Jesus proclaimed that he was the Son of God when he preached. For a nonbeliever, this had to have been blasphemous. So how can nonreligious scholars believe that Jesus existed, without believing the essence of what he had preached. Either he didn't exist or he was a heretic...