Religion may not survive the internet

[SeattleUte]

Why was it ever grouped as Pauline? I know JS made a loose comment about it, which is why many LDS consider it Pauline.

You should know better than to trust anything he says. And I say this with all due respect to JS.

[Omaha 680]

I finally got around to reading about the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in detail recently. Holy cow, talk about a wipeout.

Isn't that kind of how the Romans rolled when you rebelled against them? I'm reading about a lot of Roman battles responding to rebellions right now. If you were going to start a rebellion against Rome, it was far better to die than lose.

[Topper]

You should know better than to trust anything he says. And I say this with all due respect to JS.

Wherein did you gather that ever believed it was Pauline? As long as I can remember I had heard it was anonymous. Speaking of what an orthodox LDS person might say, because the LDS NT manual makes reference to an offhand comment JS made about Hebrews, some may misinterpret those words as authenticating a work of acknowledged dubious authorship. Those LDS who use that offhand remark construe even his intent incorrectly.

[Topper]

Four years? How many times did you take Greek 411R?

It takes a while to learn Koine, but AA is being modest. He only took Greek 411R twice.

Speaking as a novice, I find the NT the easiest of ancient Greeks to read, because the grammar is simplified and the diversity of vocabulary is small, in comparison to some of the earlier Attic works. And Solon and AA are masters to myself the novice.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Isn't that kind of how the Romans rolled when you rebelled against them? I'm reading about a lot of Roman battles responding to rebellions right now. If you were going to start a rebellion against Rome, it was far better to die than lose.

Sure. Carthage anyone?

But this was a wipeout even by Roman standards. ~1.2 million people killed or sold into slavery. Jerusalem destroyed and the temple treasury looted. They brought back so much gold that the price of gold throughout the Roman empire dropped 50%. Spurred a massive building campaign in Rome, including the Colosseum.

I always wondered why they would be foolish enough to try to rebel like that. But I learned that the Jewish rebels earned a massive victory (20,000 dead Romans) early on that convinced everyone in Judea that God had their back and they could pull it off. Whoops.

[All-American]

It takes a while to learn Koine, but AA is being modest. He only took Greek 411R twice.

Speaking as a novice, I find the NT the easiest of ancient Greeks to read, because the grammar is simplified and the diversity of vocabulary is small, in comparison to some of the earlier Attic works. And Solon and AA are masters to myself the novice.

Actually, I did take Greek 411R twice. But that's just because the class using that course name may cover different topics from semester to semester, and so they make the class repeatable. The second time I took it, it was a seminar on ancient piracy.

[Topper]

Actually, I did take Greek 411R twice. But that's just because the class using that course name may cover different topics from semester to semester, and so they make the class repeatable. The second time I took it, it was a seminar on ancient piracy.

The first part was intended as a joke, btw.

[All-American]

Sure. Carthage anyone?

But this was a wipeout even by Roman standards. ~1.2 million people killed or sold into slavery. Jerusalem destroyed and the temple treasury looted. They brought back so much gold that the price of gold throughout the Roman empire dropped 50%. Spurred a massive building campaign in Rome, including the Colosseum.

I always wondered why they would be foolish enough to try to rebel like that. But I learned that the Jewish rebels earned a massive victory (20,000 dead Romans) early on that convinced everyone in Judea that God had their back and they could pull it off. Whoops.

I'll actually disagree with Omaha on this one. Carthage is an outlier when it comes to the way the Romans handled rebellion. Carthage was a rival, not a province under Roman power. It was destroyed (and deservedly so, if you ask me) not because it was a threat of rebellion, but a threat of invasion. The Second Punic War, in which Hannibal had invaded Italy, handed Roman armies some of the most stunning defeats in history, and approached even the doors of Rome was well-engrained into the Roman psyche. Cato the Elder is reported to have held a group of figs on the floor of the Senate, and loudly announced that the figs had been plucked but a few days earlier from their tree in Carthage-- thus showing that the threat was never more than a week or two away-- precipitating what is probably the best political campaign slogan in history: Carthago Delenda Est.

So, like I said, Carthage is a special case. If you merely rebelled against Rome, the best way to survive was actually to fight well. In the Social War toward the beginning of the last century BC, a number of states rebelled against the Republic. The rebellion was ultimately suppresed, but at the end of the war, after fierce fighting, Rome essentially gave the rebels what they wanted, giving full citizenship first to the cities and provinces that had not rebelled, but eventually, to the rest of the Italian and Latin Allies as well.

Jerusalem is an outlier as well, probably due to the fact that the Jews were repeat offenders.

[FMCoug]

You should know better than to trust anything he says. And I say this with all due respect to JS.

And I say this with all due respect to that liar. LOL.

"No offense but ...."

[SeattleUte]

The rebels who held Jerusalem were religious fanatics. Most of the Jewish nobility and progressives had fled. Herod Agrippa and all the ruling class was gone. The city was overrun with terrorists and misfits and there were a lot of poor. Rome wanted them to surrender and only a few of the leaders would have been crucified. Rome had already reconquered Judea except Jerusalem, and yes, many Jews were killed, made slaves, etc. but Rome mostly wanted them to settle down and start being productive, pay tributes, etc. they could have gone back to the temple cult, all of that. Ultimately, Rome was a pluralistic society and somewhat tolerant or pragmatic.

[Blueintheface]

Strange how as an active LDS person I felt an aversion to reading secular works regarding Biblical history (my fault entirely as the church in no way prohibited it) and now I can't get enough.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The rebels who held Jerusalem were religious fanatics. Most of the Jewish nobility and progressives had fled. Herod Agrippa and all the ruling class was gone. The city was overrun with terrorists and misfits and there were a lot of poor. Rome wanted them to surrender and only a few of the leaders would have been crucified. Rome had already reconquered Judea except Jerusalem, and yes, many Jews were killed, made slaves, etc. but Rome mostly wanted them to settle down and start being productive, pay tributes, etc. they could have gone back to the temple cult, all of that. Ultimately, Rome was a pluralistic society and somewhat tolerant or pragmatic.

Yep. But you forgot one additional factor. Titus (Roman general in charge of the siege) needed a big victory to build a reputation and cement his position as frontrunner to replace his old man as the next emperor.

At the same time, Titus wasn't planning to destroy the temple and had given specific orders to his soldiers to preserve it, but one of them threw a torch in through an open window and all hell broke loose.

[Topper]

Strange how as an active LDS person I felt an aversion to reading secular works regarding Biblical history (my fault entirely as the church in no way prohibited it) and now I can't get enough.

My very devout sister still refuses to read religious materials not generated by the Church because they are NOT "faith-promoting".

When the Church issued the recent memo on the priesthood ban, which validated and vindicated many of the things I had been espousing to her, she went completely silent and refused to comment, being nonplussed. You fall into that bubble and want to be preserved in its protection.

[Solon]

I'll actually disagree with Omaha on this one. Carthage is an outlier when it comes to the way the Romans handled rebellion. Carthage was a rival, not a province under Roman power. It was destroyed (and deservedly so, if you ask me) not because it was a threat of rebellion, but a threat of invasion. The Second Punic War, in which Hannibal had invaded Italy, handed Roman armies some of the most stunning defeats in history, and approached even the doors of Rome was well-engrained into the Roman psyche. Cato the Elder is reported to have held a group of figs on the floor of the Senate, and loudly announced that the figs had been plucked but a few days earlier from their tree in Carthage-- thus showing that the threat was never more than a week or two away-- precipitating what is probably the best political campaign slogan in history: Carthago Delenda Est.

So, like I said, Carthage is a special case. If you merely rebelled against Rome, the best way to survive was actually to fight well. In the Social War toward the beginning of the last century BC, a number of states rebelled against the Republic. The rebellion was ultimately suppresed, but at the end of the war, after fierce fighting, Rome essentially gave the rebels what they wanted, giving full citizenship first to the cities and provinces that had not rebelled, but eventually, to the rest of the Italian and Latin Allies as well.

Jerusalem is an outlier as well, probably due to the fact that the Jews were repeat offenders.

For my money, the best way to understand Roman mentality in treating its conquered lands was suggested by Ernst Badian in Foreign Clientelae. Although Badian's book ends in the late Republic, it still works for understanding why Rome was so hard on rebels.

Badian's thesis is that, in the minds of the Romans, conquered lands should act towards Rome like clients act towards their patron (think of Bonasera the Undertaker & the Corleones for a good example of what the patron-client relationship looked like). Enemies were enemies. Clients were supposed to be unwaveringly loyal and grateful for their patrons' protection & guidance. This is why Rome was so harsh on revolting provinces; it was much more offensive than an invasion by an enemy. It was betrayal.

Plus, Romans were pragmatic. Why leave any of these guys alive to fight next year if you can kill them all now?

Man, this thread has a pretty high nerd-alert rating.
The intricacies of Pauline Greek in NT pseudepigraphia? Kill me.

[Pelado]

For my money, the best way to understand Roman mentality in treating its conquered lands was suggested by Ernst Badian in Foreign Clientelae. Although Badian's book ends in the late Republic, it still works for understanding why Rome was so hard on rebels.

Badian's thesis is that, in the minds of the Romans, conquered lands should act towards Rome like clients act towards their patron (think of Bonasera the Undertaker & the Corleones for a good example of what the patron-client relationship looked like). Enemies were enemies. Clients were supposed to be unwaveringly loyal and grateful for their patrons' protection & guidance. This is why Rome was so harsh on revolting provinces; it was much more offensive than an invasion by an enemy. It was betrayal.

Plus, Romans were pragmatic. Why leave any of these guys alive to fight next year if you can kill them all now?

Man, this thread has a pretty high nerd-alert rating.
The intricacies of Pauline Greek in NT pseudepigraphia? Kill me.

Rebel against the Romans and they'll take care of it.