The Pax Romana and Birth of Jesus

1

Part 2: The First Nativity

Kairos of the Messiah’s First Advent.

Sons and Heirs

4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a
slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and
managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were
children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the
fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying,
“Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir
through God. (Galatians 4:1-7, English Standard Version, online.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q= Galatians + 4. Emphasis on v. 4, the author’s –
JDR).

Birth of John the Baptist Foretold

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the
division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name
was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in
all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. 7 But they had no child, because
Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty,
9 according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple
of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying
outside at the hour of incense. 11 And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord
standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And Zechariah was troubled
when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be
afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear
you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness,

2

and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he
must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even
from his mother's womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the
Lord their God, 17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn
the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the
just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

18 And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man,
and my wife is advanced in years.” 19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I
stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this
good news. 20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that
these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be
fulfilled in their time.” 21 And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were
wondering at his delay in the temple. 22 And when he came out, he was unable to
speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept
making signs to them and remained mute. 23 And when his time of service was
ended, he went to his home. 24 After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for
five months she kept herself hidden, saying, 25 “Thus the Lord has done for me in the
days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”
(Luke 1:1–25, English Standard Version online. See references above).

3

I. The Historical Setting of the World:
Pax Romana.

Such were the various forms of relief suggested by human planning. Then means
were taken to propitiate the gods. The Sybilline books were consulted, and prayers
were offered, as the books prescribed, to Vulcan, to Ceres, and to Prosperine. Juno
was supplicated by the matrons, first on the Capitol, and afterwards at the nearest
point upon the sea coast, from which water was drawn to sprinkle the temple and the
image of the goddess; banquets to the goddess and all-night festivals were celebrated
by married women. But neither the aid of men, nor the emperor’s bounty, nor the
propitiary offerings to the gods, could remove the grim suspicion that the fire had
been started by Nero’s order. To put an end to this rumor, he shifted the charge on to
others, and inflicted the most cruel tortures upon a group of people detested for their
abominations, and popularly known as ‘Christians’. This name came from one
Christus, who was put to death in the prinicipate of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius
Pilate. Though checked for a time, the detestable supersition broke out again, not in
Judea only, where its mischief began, but even in Rome, where every abomination and
shameful iniquity, from all the world, pours in and finds a welcome. First those who
acknowledged themselves of this sect were condemned, not so much on the charge of
arson, as for their hatred of the human race. Their death was turned into an
entertainment. They were clothed in the skins of wild animals and torn to pieces by
dogs; they were crucified or staked up to be burned, to serve the purpose of lamps
when daylight failed. Nero gave up his own gardens for this spectacle; he provided
also games, during which he mingled with the crowd, in the garb of a charioteer. But
guilty as these people were and worthy of direst punishment, the fact that they were
being cut off for no public good, but only to glut the cruelty of one man, aroused a
feeling of pity.1 (Tacitas, Annals 15:44)

The media often report some new discovery or publication which, it is claimed,
finally proves that Jesus was, after all, nothing but a magician, a freedom fighter or a
devout mystic. Television or newspaper features appear, quoting the opinions of
scholars to the effect that Jesus was not really the supernatural figure Christians had
believed him to be. These matters are seldom presented in a balanced way by allowing
scholars who hold orthodox beliefs an opportunity to respond. Only the sensationalist
opinions tend to be reported. The cumulative effect has been that many people think
the New Testament thas been effectively discredited.

I believe many readers will be surprised at the wealth of solid historical
information to be found with the New Testament and the degree to which the New
Testament story can be reconstructed. The data is, of course, uneven in its distribution.
At some points we are able to plot the movements of Jesus and Paul with pinpoint
accuracy as to both time and place. At other times, however, a whole decade is passed

4

over in silence. That, however, is the nature of all evidence from antiquity, not merely
the New Testament . . . .2

Augustus and the Establishment of the Pax Romana

As one closes the sacred pages of the Hebrew Scriptures, at least in the last historical

narratives of that older Testament, the reader is to assume that Judea as well as the remainder of

Western Asia were part of the ancient Persian empire, of which Daniel, ch. 6 ff. speaks. The last

monarch specifically named is “Darius the Persian,” who is also referred to in Nehemiah 12:22 .

According to many scholars, this is probably Darius II (423 – 405 B.C.) or, perhaps, Darius III

(336 – 331 B.C.), the last king of Persia (who was conquered by Alexander the Great). But after

almost four silent centuries, we encounter a new world culture and empire in the New

Testament. According to F.F. Bruce, a totally new situation the existed:

When we open the New Testament, we find another world dominating the Near
East and indeed the whole Mediterranean area. The New Testament writings, from first
to last, are set in the context of the Roman Empire. The story which they tell, from the
closing years of the pre-Christian era to the end of the first century A.D., presupposes
throughout the dominating presence of the Roman power. The Third Evangelist connects
the birth of Jesus with a decree issued by the first Roman Emperor Augustus, ‘ that all the
world should be enrolled ’(Luke 2:1). Jesus grew to manhood in a land where the
propriety of paying to Rome a tribute which it imposed was a live political and
theological issue; it was a Roman magistrate who sentenced him to death and it was by a
Roman form of execution that the sentence was carried out. The most prominent
character in New Testament history after Jesus himself is Paul, a Roman citizen by birth,
who carried the Christian message from its Palestinian homeland throughout the eastern
provinces of the Roman Empire until he reached Rome itself; our last certain view of Paul
see him living there in house-arrest for two years, at liberty to urge the Christian way of
salvation on all who came to visit him. Nor does the New Testament stop there; it carries
the story forward to the following decades in which Roman law set its face against
Christianity, so that a man was liable to suffer ‘as a Christian’, without its being
necessary to produce evidence of positive criminal action on his part. The Roman Empire
is presented, in the powerful imagery of John’s Apocalypse, as a seven-headed monster,
waging war against the people of God and all who refuse to pay it divine honours, but
doomed to go down in defeat before ‘the patience and faith of the saints’ as they win
through to final victory ‘by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony’
(Rev. 13:10; 12:11).3

Thus, we come to the controversial matter of our present chapter, the so-called Pax

Romana. Undoubtably, for first and second century Jews and Christians, this “peace” was

5

externally and forcibly imposed and the everyday universal superintendence of this immense

classical imperial bureauracy was something less than always either blessed or benign. Yet, in

that over-ruling providence of God in which both Christians and Jews believe, there were many

important positive aspects to the pacification and empire-building of the masters from the great

Italian city on the Tiber. Indeed, that it was both the right chronological and existential moment in

human history for God to send His Son forth into history to redeem both Israel and the nations

cannot be doubted by any Christian who has received the Gospel and experienced Christ to

whom it bears witness.

But let the term itself first be defined in a more or less neutral way. Pax Romana is a

historical description for the long period of relative tranquility extending to the entire

Mediterranean world as conquered or annexed by the Roman Empire in the first and second

centuries A.D. or actually from about 27 B.C. to about 180 A.D., or from the official beginning of

Emperor Augustus’ reign until the beginning of the imperial control of Marcus Aurelius. This

historical setting can be readily linked to the Apostle’s Paul’s expression in Galatians 4:4: ὅτε δὲ

ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωα τοῦ χρόνου, lit., “ but when it had come – the fullness of the time. ‘’ The Greek
word chronos is used about 53 times in New Testament and in the majority of cases it designates

some kind of measured or calendrical time, although about 19 times it is used in an abverbial

way, with miscellaneous denotations, or even not separately translated. Sometimes theologians

have contrasted chronos with kairos, another Greek designation, which occurs in about 87 places

in the New Testament and indicates a special time, an appointed occasion, observed season,
unique opportunity, or due time. Probably, since “the fullness” (τὸ πλήρωα) precedes the word,

the whole phrase is to be understood as similar to kairos, because a particular era or moment in

human history is Divinely chose for the Messiah to appear in history. So, the question remains:

Why is the particular moment of the Messiah’s birth so important and how is it related to Pax

Romana ?

The phenomenon which historians call Pax Romana was first identified by the rationalist

historian Edward Gibbon in his classic nineteenth century work, The Decline and Fall of the

Roman Empire. This term was proposed for that period of moderation and relative cessation

6

from foreign wars under Augustus and his successors. James T. Dennison, Jr. in a chapel

sermon preached a few years ago offers a good basic summary of the notion:

The Age of Augustus was celebrated by the poets (especially Virgil) as a new era – the
dawn of the age of gold. The empire was expanding in every area: law, culture, arts,
humanities, military might, religious revival. The economy boomed, the temples were
full–any and every new cult had opportunity to erect a temple in Rome. Reform was in
4
the air–reform of manners–reform of religion–reform of the republic.

In one sense the Pax Romana was a relative cessation of the traumatic civil strife that

affected Roman society in Italy and a temporary mild reduction of its foreign wars in Gaul, the

upper Danube, North Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Asia Minor, and Syria-Palestine. It

was not so much an era of natural peace as a time of momentary pacification by numerous

powerful Roman legions sent to all parts of the world. Although, from another perspective, the

story of Pax Romana actually began with a bloody and violent assassination.

On the cool misty morning of March 15, 44 B.C., Emperor Julius Caesar was brutally

assassinated by several members of the Roman Senate including Brutus and Cassius. Just one

month before, Caesar had proudly declared himself dictator of the Roman world. Now, in the

wake of his political execution, a new Roman triumvirate was formed by three other Roman

leaders in order to punish the perpetrators: the trio of Mark Anthony (a consul), Lepidus (a high

assembly official), and Octavian (the grand-nephew of the murdered emperor). Until 37 B.C.,

there was relative calm in the Roman world, even though a major battle had transpired when

Anthony and Octavian’s legions decisively defeated those of Brutus and Cassius at the Battle of

Philippi in 42 B.C. These days were perilous ones, however. Even that great ancient statesman

and philosopher Cicero was publicly executed for his sympathies to the fallen republican

conspirators and had his head severed and his hands cut off to be placed for public view in the

Roman Forum. Then, even the bonds and pledges of alliance with the new triumvirate began to

break and fray in 37 B.C. The cause of this disintegration of the three power players was due to

the vicissitudes of human passion and the complications of an extra-marital romance. Mark

Anthony was not only Octavian’s political ally but also his brother-in-law. He had formed a

marriage contract with Octavian’s sister, Octavia. Yet, while attending to his duties in the East,

he had met the seductive Cleopatra in Taursus and formed a second marriage contract with her

7

(previously Cleopatra had formed an cohabitative alliance with Julius Caesar and had a child by

the late emperor whom she named Caesarium). Thus, after a number of political and personal

disagreements, Octavian and Anthony came into open conflict in 32 B.C. and this eventually led

to the defeat of Anthony’s legions at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. And, as all schoolboys

know, Anthony fled to Egypt where he committed suicide, soon to be followed by princess

Cleopatra who took an asp to her bosom.

Following the milestone victory at Actium, Octavian Caesar became the sole master of

the Roman world and actually realized the dream of his great-uncle Julius. He would be ruler of

the Roman Empire for the next forty-five years, until 14 A.D. Despite his highly questionable

route to this supreme power, he made the most of the opportunity and was quite successful in

reforming almost every major Roman institution. He was the main contributor to the idea of Pax

Romana because he helped to establish the Roman Empire on a rational and ordered basis. Since

his reforms set the patterns of the Imperium for the next two centuries and thus the first major

era of this period of history, a period of unbelievable creativity, is called the Augustian Age.

On January 13, 27 B.C., the confident and ever-victorious Octavian appeared before the

Roman Senate and declared his supreme authority. At this same time, Octavian changed his

name to Augustus Caesar (in Latin, Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus). The Senate had

already been brought into compliance with the Emperor’s wishes and its total number had been

reduced from about 1000 to 800 members. Most of the senators were voluntarily solid

supporters of Augustus, or else had been hand-picked for their loyalty to the new central

power. Ironically, Augustus also declared that he had just restored the Republic (even though

the Roman Empire was now a virtual dictatorship). Augustus was promised an immediate ten

years rule (but this was a mere formality). For now Augustus controlled all the legions which

were obliged to defend the Senate and the Roman people. Each senator took a solemn oath of

allegiance to the new Emperor as imperator, the One who was the will of Rome. Later, in 23 B.C.,

Augustus was also granted the authority of tribune (tribunicia potestas) for life. Thus, Augustus

had supreme veto power and could deal directly with the people of Rome.5

Because many of Augustus’ reforms were practical and sensible, he became larger than

8

life to most of the Roman people. Some then began to speak of the Emperor as hero, and others

went further to describe Augustus as a god. The changes that he made were compromises

between traditional Republican values and the new imperial reality. The propaganda praised

the old traditions, but the economic, political, and social realities were rapidly changing. Thus,

while Augustus’ reforms saved the new Empire, the traditional institutions, the Roman Senate

in particular, became an empty shell of the past. The historic ideas of representative government

and hard old Roman virtues were being systematically undermined. All the historic republican

institutions now would be united in one person – the Emperor himself. Professor F.F. Bruce

describes the situation quite well:

In January, 27 B.C., Octavian, having established peace throughout the Roman
world, ‘handed the republic back to the Senate and the people of Rome.’ He himself was
acclaimed as princeps, chief citizen of the republic, and among other honors was given the
name Augustus, by which he was thenceforth known. In fact he retained all the reins of
power in his own hands, but he knew the psychological and diplomatic value of
restoring the forms and nomenclature of the old republican regime.
When he handed the republic back to the Senate and people of Rome, he handed
back the provinces, many of which were at the time administered directly responsibility
for the administration of some of the most important of these provinces. It is often said
that he administered directly those provinces which required the presence of a standing
army, while the more peaceful provinces came under the jurisdiction of the Senate. This
is roughly true, though not completely so. Augustus was commander-in-chief of the
Roman army, so provinces which required Roman arms either for external defense
(along the Rhine, Danube and Euphrates frontiers) or for internal security were more
conveniently administrated Asia and Achaia) which were nominally under the control of
the Senate and were governed by proconsuls appointed by that body were none the less
really under the control of Augustus and his successors. Neither the Senate in
appointing a proconsul, nor the proconsul in administering his province, could afford to
ignore the will of the princeps.
Those provinces which required legionary troops to be posted in them (like
Galatia and Syria) were administered by an imperial legate, the legatus pro praetore. For
the sixty years following A.D. 6, when Judea became a Roman province, it was
garrisoned not by legendary but by auxiliary troops, and was garrisoned not by
legionary but by auxiliary troops, and was governed by an officer or lower rank than an
imperial legate – by a member of the equestrian order, the praefectus or procurator.6

Augustus was an able administrator and to deal with his four major problems he

pursued the following steps to secure and organize his empire: Firstly, the frontiers, especially

in the north and east were consolidated against attack by barbarians. This meant that he

9

extended his borders to the Rhine and Danube rivers and no further to heavily bolster the

outposts that remained. Secondly, he ordered a reduction in the size of the army and the

remainder were stationed in the provinces. He provided a cash payment to those soldiers who

had served for more than twenty years, thus securing their loyalty to the Roman state and not to

their generals. The army was removed from Rome where they could be tempted to a meddle in

civic affairs. Additionally, he created a special army supremely loyal to himself, e.g., the

Praetorian Guard. This was an elite force of over 9,000 soldiers charged specifically with the

defense of Rome and the Emperor. The Praetorians were to be from Italy only and received

higher wages than the average Roman legionnaire. During the reign of Augustus this worked

well, since these troops were new and fiercely devoted to the Emperor. But in the decades and

centuries to come, the leaders of the Praetorian Guard had the power to make or break even the

power of the emperor. Thirdly, the Emperor and the Senate (by his insistence) provided

subsidies to farmers and free grain and other necessities to the masses of Rome (hence, a

welfare “state” began to emerge in later times). Fourthly, in the home provinces near Rome,

Augustus entrusted the Senatorial class with formal powers, creating a new senatorial

aristocracy. Even though real power was being quickly lost by the Senate, they were made to

feel like the old Republic still endured. Thus, for a time the reforms or Augustus Caesar

stabilized the economy and political structure of the Mediterranean world. The empire with its

provinces seemed self-sufficient and the Emperor was the apparent ruler of the civilized world

(i.e., the oecumene).

There were, though, dangerous if yet unseen flaws in the virtually perfect imperial order

of things. Economically, the system was based on a network of mutually interdependent areas.

If one province fell, it could hurt the whole Empire. Moreover, the vast system of slave labor

was also showing signs of deterioration. Slaves with no future for freedom had no motivation to

work. Furthermore, the number of slaves had been reduced since many slave families had won

their freedom by manumission. As a result, manpower was drained off the farms. At the same

time Rome and other Latin cities became more crowded with unemployed men and women

who would follow whatever leader and whatever cause brought them bread and shelter.

Pedagogues and conniving politicians could influence the Senate and, eventually, the election of

10

new emperors. Author Steve Kreis has offered a provocative summary of the Roman Peace

which lasted from Augustus to the time of Marcus Aurelius in the late second century A.D.:

In general, the Augustan system worked fairly well, in fact, it lasted more than 200
years. It provided a material and political base of cultural achievement that rivaled the
Greeks under Pericles. This is the age of the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. But the Augustan
reforms were not limited to political, economic and social issues alone. They also envisioned
a fundamental change in Roman culture itself. Augustus tried to turn Rome into a world
capital and taught the Romans to identify their destiny with the destiny of all mankind. They
were the chosen people who would bring peace and stability to a violent and changing
world.7

The Jews and the Coming of Pax Romana

For one to appreciate the overall impact of the later Pax Romana on the Jews and

Palestine, it is necessary to recall the earlier historical waves of the expanding Hellenistic

empire of Alexander the Great (334-323 B.C.). This vast domain, however, was divided into four

dynastic kingdoms by Alexander’s main generals (the details are actually a bit more complex,

but a thorough general history is not being presented here): After Antigonus was killed in battle

in Asia, the Macedonian Empire was split into the following areas and rulers: (1) Syria and Asia

Minor controlled by Seleucius; (2) Egypt and its vicinity ruled by General Ptolemy; (3) Thrace

under the dominion of Lysimachus; and Macedonia and Greece under Cassander, the son of

Antipater.

Neither the Macedonian nor the Thracian kingdoms endured into the first century B.C.,

but Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties were significant for almost two and a half centuries and

each of these powers fought over control of Palestine and hence the Jewish nation.8

The Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt was founded by Ptolemy I in 323 B.C., with its capital in

Alexandria, while the Seleucid dynasty originated in Syria created by Seleucus I in 312 B.C.,

with its capital in Antioch. Judea remained under the overlordship of the Ptolemies under 198

B.C. But that year marked a change of times and suzerainities. Because the armies of Seleucia

won a victory at Panieon (near the sources of the Jordan River, later known as Caesarea

Philippi), for the next fifty years Judea was required to live under the rulers of Seleucia.

11

In earlier times, Judea had lived in relative peace and freedom – having a large measure

of political and religious autonomy. Professor Bruce describes it thusly:

The country was controlled by imperial governor, and the people had to pay
taxes to the imperial exchequer; but Judea itself – which consisted of a restricted
area radiating but a few miles from Jerusalem–was organized as a temple-state,
whose constitution was laid down in the priestly law of the Pentateuch. The high
priest, as head of the internal administration of the tiny Jewish state. There were
were many Jews outside Judea came directly under the jurisdiction of the high
priest. The high priest was always drawn from the ancient family of Zadok– the
Zadok who had been chief priest in the earlier Temple built by King Solomon
about 960 B.C. 9

It was thus providentially inevitable, if one accepts the prophetic visions of Daniel 7 and

8 as real forecasts of world history, that the Seleucid rulers of Judea (the last of the Bronze

kingdom of the Hellenistic Alexander) should clash with the new emerging power in the

Aegean world – the Romans. And so in 190 B.C. at the battle of Magnesia the Seleucid armies

were crushed by the powerful legions of the republic of Rome. As peace followed, the terms of

the Peace of Apamea (188 B.C.) not only gave away the Seleucids’ wealthy provinces in western

Asia Minor, but also enforced a heavy tribute upon them, which was to be paid in twelve

annual installments. As the history of these times progressed, the periods of payment of these

indemnities had to be extended by new owners for several years because of the difficulty of the

subservient rulers in raising the tribute money.

This financial hardship, spurred on by pagan Hellenistic dislike of the non-cosmopolitan

culture and religion of Jews, led to both economic suffering and military conflict. It happened

like this: Jason, the brother of the Zadokite high priest Onias III, offered the new Seleucid king

Antiochus IV (175-163 B.C.) a hefty cache of gold if he would make him high priest in his

brother’s place. Antiochus was only too happy to accept the generous bribe, because Jason (a

liberal Hellenized Jewish leader) was quite ready to expedite the process of Hellenization of the

Jewish nation. A few years later (171 B.C.), Menelaus, an even more zealous Hellenizer, who did

not even belong to the Zadokite priestly family, offered the king a still larger endowment if he

would make him high priest in Jason’s place. Antiochus was overjoyed to nominate the new

candidate, which brought an end to the genuine Zadokite priestly line as ministers in Jerusalem.

12

During this era (170 – 167 B.C.), Antiochus IV began to exhibit his maniacal egotism and

adopted the unbelievable epithet “Epiphanes” (implying he was the incarnate manifestation of

the Olympian Zeus). He was also perhaps trying to compensate for his father’s dynastic losses

in the Aegean realm by the Roman forces by annexing Egypt to the Seleucid dominions. Yet, on

the brink of his success he was powerfully checked by Roman intervention in the conflict (168

B.C.). Meanwhile, the news of this political and military check on Antiochus’ ambitions

prompted the people of Judea to oust the despised Menelaus for the more highly favored

deposed Jason. This act made the proud Antiochus furious and he quickly planned to punish

the offending rebels. When he returned from Egypt, he assaulted Jerusalem as enemy city,

demolishing its outer walls and later looting the Temple treasury.

But the visceral sources of Antiochus’ rage was more than political, he wished to ensure

the absolute loyalty of Judea, the southwestern frontier of his empire. His advisors then urged

him to abolish the Temple constitution, ban the distinctive practices of the Jewish faith, and

recreate Jerusalem as an Hellenistic city in which only the thorough-going assimilationists in

Judea would have citizenship. Other Jews were to be killed or enslaved. The Temple, once more

under the leadership of Menelaus, was turned over to the cult of Olympian Zeus, locally

identified with the Syrian deity Ba’al Shamen, “ the lord of heaven.”10 In one of the milestone

eras of Jewish history, the people of God suffered three years of a blasphemous sacrilege – from

December, 167 B.C., to December, 164 B.C. – this “appalling sacrilege” or “abomination of

desolation” transpired.11

Enter into the record of history the aged Mattathias, of the Hasmonaean family, who

demonstrated for all time that some Jews valued loyalty to their ancestral faith above

everything in this world; there were stalwart men, who so loved the Old Testament Scriptures

that they refused to submit to royal pagan decrees and willingly suffered martyrdom. But in

Mattathias’ case, he and his sons took up arms against Antiochus’ harsh regime. He and his five

sons were to become legendary Jewish guerilla fighters, who fought (with God’s help) against a

number of larger and better equipped royal armies and eventually defeated them. Antiochus,

who had vast designs to conquer lost provinces beyond the Euphrates, found it highly

13

impractical to forever bog down all his armies in the Judean struggle. Thus, he saw the wisdom

of making a truce with the Jewish insurgents. He was forced then to remove the ban on the

former practice of the Jewish religion, and the worship of the God of Israel was resumed in the

purified Temple according to the ancient Hebrew ritual (164 B.C.).12

Unfortunately, while the Hasmonaeans had faithfully struggled to recover religious

liberty for the Jewish nation, the next generation (following Mattathias Maccabaeus and the

older son’s deaths) had to continue to preserve this accomplishment (and, for the next twenty

years, were aided by the frequent dynastic rivalry and civil strife among their more powerful

Seleucid neighbors). Finally, genuine national autonomy was actually won under Simon

Maccabaeus, the last of that family in ca. 142 B.C. However, when national sovereignty was

secured under Simon (who succeeded his brother Jonathan after the latter was taken prisoner

and executed in 143 B.C.), the popular Jewish assembly happily decreed that he not only be

their military leader, but that he should also be a ‘ high priest for ever, until a trustworthy

prophet should arise ‘ (I Maccabees 14:41). This unsatisfactory situation came about because the

only suitable remaining Zadokite candidate for the high-priesthood had departed to Egypt

about twenty years before, to assume the leadership of the new Jewish temple at Leontoplis.13

The Jews and Judea thus went on for over a century, and for about seventy-five years or

son, the Jewish leaders and people remained stubbornly independent. While the original

Hasmonaean rulers experienced prosperity and the support of their countrymen, eventually

became divided among themselves. Once more, Professor Bruce has a precise and fast-paced

exposition of this prelude to the era of Pax Romana as it affected the people of Israel:

. . . The Hasmonaeans, who had so recently been hard put to secure bare
survival for their nation, now saw undreamed - of the opportunities of expansionopening
before them. Simon’s son, John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.), overran Idumea, Samaria, and
part of Galilee and them to his realm; his sons Aristobulus I (104 – 103 B.C.) and
Alexander Janneaus (103 – 76 B.C.), who took over the title ‘king’ continued their
father’s conquering enterprise until the kingdom of Judea, extended from the
Mediterranean seaboard on the west into Transjoradan on the east, was nearly as
large as the united monarchy of David and Solomon.
These kings, however, were unprincipled characters, aping the ways of minor
Hellenistic rulers, but lacking any redeeming pretensions to Hellenistic culture. Janneaus
in particular, as he besieged and destroyed one Hellenistic city after another on the

14

perimeter of his kingdom, showed himself a complete vandal. Nor had his vandalism the
excuse that it was the product of zeal for the God of Israel against the idolatries of the
heathen; of all the high priests of Israel, some of whom did little to adorn their sacred
office, none was unworthier than he. He showed no concern for anything but personal
power and military conquest; in his unquenchable thirst for this way of life he hazarded
his nation’s independence more than once, exhausted the national wealth, and forfeited
the respect and goodwill of the best elements in the nation.
At his death in 76 B.C. he was succeeded as civil ruler by his wife Salome
Alexandra (her Jewish name Salome is an abbreviation of Selom–S!iyyon, ‘peace of Zion’).
Her elder son, Hyrcanus II, a man singularly lacking in the characteristic family
ambition, became the high priest; her younger son, Aristobulus II, whose excess of
ambition amply compensated for his brother’s deficiency, was given a military
command. Her reign of nine years was remembered a brief golden age; her death in 67
B.C. followed by civil war between the partisans of her two sons. While Hyrcanus was
completely unambitious, he was used as a facade by the gifted Idumean politician
Antipater, who saw how useful Hyrcanus could be to the promotion of his own
ambitions. Antipater saw clearly that the path of wisdom for a man with his ambitions
was to co-operate with the Roman power, which at this juncture was establishing itself in
Western Asia. His opportunity came with Roman occcupation of Judea in 63 B.C. The
pretext for this occupation was the civil war between the two Hasmonaean brothers.
Each of them invoked the support of the Roman general Pompey, who, in the course of
reorganizing Western Asia, was at that time reducing Syria to the status of a Roman
province. He intervened very readily, but Aristobulus and his followers soon found
themselves opposing him, and their opposition led to his occupation of Jerusalem in the
spring of 63 B.C., followed by the three months’ seige and storming of the well-fortified
Temple area. Judea lost her independence, and became subject to Rome. 14

During the era of General Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey) several wars were fought by

Roman armies in Asia Minor and Syria. Perhaps the most important and extensive conflict was

that between Rome and Pontus, ruled by Mithridates VI (134 to 63 B.C.). Mithridates was

doubtless one of the Roman Republic’s most formidable and successful enemies, who engaged

three of the prominent generals from the late Roman Republic in the Mithridatic Wars: Lucius

Cornelius Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey.

King Mithridates came to power as a boy of thirteen years of ages in ca. 120 B.C. and

was heir to a kingdom which had once been a satrapy of the Persian Empire. Geographically its

borders stretched along the southern shore of the Black Sea (from whence Pontus derived its

name) from the lower Halys eastwards to Colchis. In the 4th century B.C., Alexander the Great

had incorporated it into his vast empire, but because of the intermittent wars between his

successors, the kingdom regained its independence. Furthermore, in 133 B.C. when Attalus III,

15

last king of Pergamum, bequeathed his kingdom to the Senate and people of Rome, Mithridates

V of Pontus (father of the later Mithradates) acted as an ally of the Romans. Indeed, he aided

them in their war against Aristonicus, half-brother of Attalus, who imagined that he could claim

the kingdom of Pergamum for himself. For Mithradates’ assistance to the Rome, he was

rewarded with part of the territory of Phyrgia.

Mithradates VI took over his father’s kingdom when the elder was assassinated in 120

B.C. But the Romans took advantage of the youth of this ruler to reclaim the valuable Phrygian

province once more. Still, in a a few years Mithradates was able to console himself for his loss

by extending his power to the east into Armenia. While he dared not interfere with his western

and southern neighbors (Bithynia, Galatia and Cappadocia) which lay clearly within Rome’s

sphere of influence, he could extend his rule eastward into Armenia and also east and north

along the coast of the Black Sea and to occupy part of the Crimea. An intelligent fellow he then

allied himself with Tigranes, the king of Armenia and even pledged his daughter to the latter in

marriage. He also embraced in political friendship the rulers of Armenia and the distant

Parthians. His outstanding statesmanship and martial energy vastly increased his power in the

whole of Asia beyond other rulers and made him far more formidable than any of the warring

claimants of the crumbling Seleucid Empire. Even the Romans began to view the Pontic

monarch as a serious challenge.

Mithradates clashed with Rome and its legions when he endeavored to place his own

puppets on the thrones of Cappadocia and Bithynia. Immediately, the Roman-sponsored king

of Bithynia, acted with Rome’s full support to invade the territory of territory of their new

challenger. Initially, the king sent envoys to protest in Rome, but that overture proved pointless.

So, acting on his own counsel, he invaded both Cappadocia and Bithynia in 88 B.C. and overrun

them. In the process, he decisively trounched a Roman army in the region. Thus, for a time, he

was master of virtually the whole province of Asia. Since the provincials hated their Roman

masters so thoroughly (having lived under their full dominion for over forty years), they gladly

aided the armies of Pontus. And, when Mithradates ordered the cities of Asia to put to death all

Roman and Italian citizens in residence, the new allies readily cooperated with him to massacre

over 80,000 persons. Even dissatisfied Athenians and patriots in other Greek cities saw this as

16

an opportunity to throw off the Roman yoke. Many therefore welcomed Mithradates as a new

liberator.

The war between Rome and Mithradates persisted for nearly a quarter of century and

had three distinct stages. First, the famous General Lucius Cornelius Sulla was sent out in 87

B.C. to fight and he defeated the Pontic armies in Greece and brought back the Greek cities to

their Roman allegiance; then he carried the war on to Asia itself. In 84 B.C. his legions had

several victories and he compelled Mithradates to give up all his conquests in the Roman

province and imposed an indemnity on him.

Second, fighting once against broke out between King Mithradates and the Roman

forces in Asia Minor, but it reached a crisis when the Romans re-annexed Bithynia, the country

just west of Pontus, into the Roman Empire in ca. 75 B.C. This spurred the frustrated ruler to

invade Bithynia as a champion of a prince of a former royal house who now claimed the throne.

By this time, Sulla had retired from active life, and thus a new general, Lucius Lucullus, was

sent out to battle the Pontic forces. Initially, Lucullus was successful in driving the armies of

Mithradates out of Asia Minor and even pursuing him into Armenia. However, while

Mithradates and his forces remained intact in their mountain fortresses, Lucullus’s weary

troops mutinied, and the campaign failed. Thus, by 67 B.C., Mithradates was once again in

possession of his domain in Pontus still again.

It took a third brilliant and determined general, Gnaeus Pompey, to finish the struggle to

the end. The Roman Senate gave Pompey unlimited command over all the Roman forces in the

east and full authority. This was a good choice because the year before this same leader had

achieved great notoriety for purging the eastern Mediterranean from the pirates who infested it

and attacked merchant ships carrying grain to Rome then threatened by famine. Pompey had

accomplished this remarkable feat in three months and now the Senate had bestowed

extraordinary powers upon him to carry out a new mission (the Manilian Law, 66 B.C.). After he

had arrived in Asia and assumed command form Lucullus, he vigorously pursued

Mithradaties. Mithradates was driven from Pontus once more, but this time his son-in-law in

Armenia refused him safe haven there. So, he withdrew to his Crimean dominions and two

years later (65 B.C.) committed suicide.

17

Now all of Asia Minor was at the mercy of Pompey. Even Tigranes of Armenia had to

acknowledge Pompey as his conquerer, and was confirmed as king of Armenia. Yet, he still had

to surrender to Rome the territories he had taken in Cappadocia, Cicilia, and Syria. Now,

Pontus was a new Roman province. Furthermore, in 64 B.C., Syria was also made a client

province of Rome. This spelled the absolute end of the Seleucid kingdom, and this having

collapsed, the neighboring principalities (once ruled by Syria), including Judea, were obliged to

concede Roman sovereignty.

The Negative Aspects of Pax Romana

Anyone who has (like the author) enjoyed the old Hollywood movies about ancient

times and the Roman Empire, will recognize that Roman generals and Roman soldiers were

frequently cruel and unjust and that they had a high tolerance for violence against others. The

story of the mass crucifixion of six thousand slaves along the Appian Way under the leadership

of Spartacus is one historic example.15 Another illustration that comes to mind is well illustrated

by the classic epic movie Ben Hur, based on the late 19th century novel by Lew Wallace. The

narrative takes place in the early decades of the first century A.D. and is set in Judea. The

protagonist, Prince Judah ben Hur, a wealthy Jerusalem merchant and a Jewish patriot is played

by Charlton Heston. The antagonist, is the Roman military tribune, Messala, played by Stephen

Boyd. Messala, a childhood friend of Judah ben Hur, arrives in Jerusalem, as the commander of

the Roman garrison there. While the two initially are happy to be re-united, soon their

respective political and religious convictions bitterly divide them. Messala believes in the glory

of Rome and its imperial power, while Ben-Hur is devoted to his faith and the freedom of the

Jewish people. Messala asks Ben-Hur for names of Jews who criticize the Roman government;

Ben-Hur counsels his countrymen against rebellion but refuses to name names, and the two

part in anger .

Later, during a parade held for the new Judean governor, Judea Valerius Gratus, a tile

falls from the roof of Ben-Hur's house and startles the governor's horse, which throws Gratus

off, nearly killing him. Although Messala knows it was an accident, he condemns Ben-Hur to

18

the galleys, and imprisons his mother and sister, to intimidate the restive Jewish populace by

punishing the family of a known friend and prominent citizen. Ben-Hur swears to return and

take revenge. En route to the sea, he is denied water when his slave gang arrives at Nazareth.

Ben-Hur collapses in despair, but a local carpenter named Jesus gives him water and renews his

will to survive. Thus far the story of Ben Hur. One can see even from this historically imperfect

movie with a definite Christian bias, that the Romans were not particularly merciful not even

consistently just. Life under Pax Romana usually meant grinding submission for those

conquered nations under the sway of Rome’s legions.

That the Romans, especially the legionaires, had a strong inclination to cruelty and

rapacity is accepted by most historical investigators. The evil reputation of the Romans allowed

their enemies (who were often not that less cruel) an opportunity for effective propaganda. The

ancient Roman writer Sallust (Gaius Sallustius Crispus; 86-35 B.C.) quotes an excellent example

from a letter of Mithridates of Pontus written to Arsaces XII, king of Parthia (c.69):

The Romans have from old known but one ground for waging war with all nations,
peoples and kings – inverterate lust of empire and wealth . . . Do you realize that they
leave nothing that do not lay their hands on – homes, wives, land, power ? that they are a
gang of men with no fatherland or ancestry of their own, swept together of old to be a
plague to the whole world ? No law, human or divine, can stand in their way; they
uproot and drag off their ‘friends’ and ‘allies’, whether they live near at hand or far
away, whether they are weak or strong; they treat as their enemies all men, and
especially all kingdoms, that refuse to serve them as slaves. 16

The Jewish dissidents and radical separatists in the Qumran viewed the Romans as the

quintessential pagans. There is hint of the Roman rapacity and viciousness in the famous

Habakkuk Commentary from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection. This is from a document which

scholars believe was written shortly before the Roman occupation of Judea by Pompey in 63

B.C. While the Old Testament Habakkuk accurately named the Chaldeans as the invaders of

Judea, in the Qumran writing Habakkuk’s Chaldean invaders are reinterpreted as the “Kitti’im”

or “Kittim”, which is a thinly disguised reference to the Romans (cf. with Daniel 11:30). The text

reads as follows:

19

Their fear and terror are on all the nations, and in the council all their device is to
do evil, and with trickery and deceit they proceed with proceed with all peoples . . . .
They trample the earth with all their horses and their beasts; from afar they come, from
the coastlands of the sea, to devour all peoples like an eagle, and there is no sating them.
With wrath and anger and fury of face and impetuous of countenance they speak with all
peoples. . . . They scorn great ones, they despise mighty men, of kings and princes they
make sport, and they mock at a great people . . . . They sacrifice to their ensigns, and
their weapons of war are their objects of worship. . . . They apportion their yoke as their
tribute, the source of their sustenance, on all peoples, to lay waste many lands year by
year . . . . They destroy many with the sword – youths, men in their prime, and old
men; women and little children, and on the fruit of the womb they have no
compassion.17

Yet in their reading of the inscrutable judgments of God, the Qumran theologians saw

the Romans (i.e., the Kittim) as executors of Yahweh’s wrath against the corrupted

Hasmonaeans, who had usurped the high priest’s holy office and unique privileges of the

Zadokites. Surely, as the decades of the iron Roman rule lingered on, the people of Qumran and

the Jews in general, must have felt that the Divine punishment was harsh indeed. Another

reflection of the sectarian interpretation of the Roman presence in Israel may be found in the

Psalms of Solomon (ca. 50 B.C.), although the rationale is different: here the Hasmonaeans are

Divinely punished not for their offense against the Zadokite high-priesthood, but because that

they “ laid waste the throne of David ” (Cf. Psa. Sol. 17:8). Here is the full pericope in context:

But thou, O God, wilt cast them down, and remove their seed from the earth,
For there has risen up against them a man alien to our race.
According to their sins wilt thou recompense them, O God;
So that it befalls them according to their deeds.
God will show them no pity;
He has sought out their seed and let none of them go free.
Faithful is the Lord in all his judgments
Which he accomplishes on earth. (Psa. Sol. 17:8-12)

Professor Bruce explains this pericope thusly: “ The man ‘alien to our race’ is Pompey, in

whose triumphal procession Aristobulus II and his sons, with many other Jews of noble birth,

were led as captives in 61 B.C. But, like the Qumran commentator, the psalmist deplores the

savagery of the Romans. ”18 Still the Qumran writer was no fan of the brutality and

heartlessness of the Romans:

20

The lawless one laid waste our land so that none inhabited it,
They destroyed young and old and their children together.
In the heat of his anger he sent them away to the west,
And exposed the rulers of the land unsparingly to derision.
Being an alien, the enemy behaved arrogantly
And his heart was alien from our God (Psa. Sol. 17:13-15)

The most blasphemous and shocking deed of General Pompey and his Roman legions

occurred when he captured the Temple complex in Jerusalem, and insisted on forcing his way

into that holy sanctuary, even into the holy of holies, where the altar of God was bathed in the

invisible glory of God. This contemptuous act of a pagan soldier was viewed by all the Jews as

an outrageous sacrilige. It comes as no surprise, then, when fifteen years later (ca. 48 B.C.), that

Pompey himself eventually met an awful and tragic doom; when fleeing from the armies of

victorious Caesar, he is assassinated in butcherous style as he sets foot on the Egyptian shore.

Many religious leaders and most of the common people of Judea who remembered his

sacreligious insult viewed this punishment as Divine justice , the eventual nemesis of

blasphemer. Once more, the writer or writers of the Psalms of Solomon recites the theme of justice

in respect to the vicious excesses of Pompey:

I had not long to wait before God showed me the insolent one slain on the mountains
mountains of Egypt, Esteemed less than the least, on land or sea, His body tossed this
way and that on the billows with much insolence, With none to bury him, since he had
rejected God with dishonour.19

Once Pompey had conquered the Jewish nation, Hyrcanus II was confirmed as the high

priest in Jerusalem. Thus, he was the figurehead leader of Judea. But since the nation was a

conquered tributary of Rome, the Judean government had no control over the nearby Greek

territories nor Samaria (even though the Hasmonaean rulers had conquered these areas in their

earlier extension of the kingdom of Israel). Still, from the time of Pompey’s hegemony, both

Judea and Syria became Roman territories and became important bases of Rome’s sphere of

influence on their Eastern frontier. Moreover, they were key areas from which imperial politics

and the relations of Rome with the ancient empires of Egypt and Parthia were carried on.

Ironically, Antipater (a Idumean) remained the real power behind Hyrcanus’s throne. As the

decades after 63 B.C. progressed, the wily Antipater craftily played his cards, increasingly

21

making himself the ally and agent of Rome. Indeed, on one occasion, he demonstrated his value

to Julius Caesar when the latter was besieged in the palace quarter of Alexandria in the winter

of 48-47 B.C. Later, Caesar reciprocated by making Antipater a tax-free Roman citizen with the

official title of procurator of Judea. This status allowed him to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,

which Pompey had earlier destroyed in war. Also, in appreciation of Antipater’s services,

Judea’s tribute to Rome was reduced and a number of other important concessions were made

to the Jews.

Herod and Pax Romana: An Uneasy Relationship.

Now, we return to that immensely crucial historical episode mentioned earlier in this

chapter, the assassination of Caesar in 44 B.C. This event was a tragic blow to the Jews

themselves, but saavy Antipater was willing to support whatever Roman governor who

happened to be sent to the East. Yet, even after he was himself murdered in 43 B.C., his sons

Phasael and Herod carried on their father’s policy as partisians of Caesar. Now Caesar’s legacy

was being promoted by Octavian, who was Caesar’s adopted son, and by his admirer, Mark

Anthony. At the famous Battle of Philippi in 42 B.C. Anthony’s legions decisively defeated the

anti-Caesarian armies of Brutus and Cassius, in which Phasael and Herod provided support.

Now that the eastern part of the empire came under Anthony’s dominion, Phasael and Herod

were appointed joint-tetrarchs of Judea.

World events were in a flurry in the late decades of the first century B.C. and in 40 B.C.

the armies of the Parthian empire overran the provinces of Syria and Judea. The Parthians now

placed the Hasmonaean Antigonus (son of Aristobulus II) as the ruling priest-king of Judea.

Herod’s brother Phasael himself was captured and killed, but Herod managed escape to Rome

where the Senate, at the direction of Mark Anthony and Octavian, declared him to be the

legitimate king of the Jews. From the Roman point of view this was no great matter, they had

simply rewarded a client-king in Palestina. Yet, for the Jews, this was a calamity; a paganized

half-Idumean (a descendent of their ancient mortal enemies, the Edomites) now sat on David’s

throne in Jerusalem.

22

For Herod, the reconquest of Judea was a difficult struggle, and by October, 37 B.C.,

Jerusalem came into Herod’s control. It had required the aid of Roman troops, however, and

three long months of warfare. For poor Antigonus things turned out tragically; he was sent in

chains to Anthony’s camp at Antioch and there executed according to Herod’s bequest.

However, Herod’s rule of thirty-three years began with violence and ended with more violence

and infamy. Such circumstances were an ill omen if he ever hoped to gain the goodwill of the

Jews. While he attempted to ingratiate himself with the people of Jerusalem by choosing

Mariamme, the Hasmonaean princess, as his new queen, this failed to favorably impress the

Jews, especially the devout.20

So, in the three decades preceding the Nativity of Jesus, Herod would display the traits

of both a capable yet ruthless administrator. Throughout the entirety of his reign, his Roman

overlords more than once had reason to regret the day that they entrusted Herod with power.

Nevertheless, Herod consistently upheld the interests of Rome both at home and the Eastern

provinces, and himself found no contradiction between the goals of Rome and his own

kingdom – generally. Historians sometimes offer a partial defense of Herod’s harshness by

observing that integration into the Roman sphere of influence would best serve to preserve the

Jews’ political and religious freedom. This conclusion, however, is debatable in light of the next

eighty or ninety years of history in the first century A.D.

Another interesting conincidence (or perhaps the design of Providence) was Herod’s

fear of the political ambitious of Cleopatra in Egypt; during his early reign he was anxious that

Egypt might endeavor to reassert the power of the Ptolemies in his new kingdom. During this

time, Mark Anthony was his close friend, but he worried about Cleopatra’s amorous influence

over General Anthony. Cleopatra had already had a son by Julius Caesar, and now she was the

paramour of Anthony; and her ancestors had held control over Judea in earlier times. In fact,

she had already used her seductive influence to gain revenues from some of the richest parts of

Herod’s Judea, especially Jericho and the adjacent territories. There is also evidence that she

manipulated the strife between Herod and the king of the Nabatean Arabs, on his Eastern

border. From the very start Herod’s kingdom not only faced internal instability but external

insecurity.

23

The most immediate threat to Herod’s security, however, came from within his own

family. His mother-in was Alexandra, the daughter of Hyrcanus II, and cousin of the lately

executed Antigonus. Hyrcanus himself, the genuinely legitimate high-priest, had been rendered

incapable of resuming the high-priesthood because his contestant (the late Antigonus) had

ordered his ear cropped off the sword. However, the next rightful candidate in the Hasmonaean

succession was the teenage Aristobulus III (only seventeen). At Alexandra’s insistence, young

Aristobulus was appointed as high priest by Herod in 36 B.C. But in a not so unpredictable

manner, Aristobulus III drowned in a mysterious bathing accident; Herod was widely

suspected of having arranged this tragedy because of his political paranoia. Apparently, the

mother-in-law had no delusions about Herod’s responsibility, and quickly sent messengers who

conveyed her indignant charges to Anthony and Cleopatra. Cleopatra was herself convinced by

her friend Alexandra and she persuaded Anthony to inquire into the alleged crime. At this

point an incensed Anthony summoned Herod before him at Laodicea in North Syria. However,

Herod made a reasonable defense, and Anthony acquited him of the charge of murder. He then

stated to Cleopatra that “ one must not inquire too closely into the actions of a king, lest he

ceases to be a king. ”21

History was moving on toward another denouement, however. Mark Anthony and

Cleopatra were becoming more and more suspicious in Octavian’s eyes (especially since

Anthony had abandoned his sister Octavia and taken to the bed of Egyptian Cleopatra). As has

already been observed, hostility between the two great Roman leaders came to a head at the

Battle of Actium in Western Greece in 31 B.C. There the legions of Anthony, supported by

Cleopatra’s Egyptian troops, were roundly defeated by Octavian’s forces. Afterwards, Anthony

and Cleopatra both fled to Egypt and late each committed suicide in the next year. This left

Octavian (soon to become Augustus) the sole master of the Roman world and it was to him that

Herod had to now appeal for the authority to continue his reign. The story of Herod’s being

summoned to meet Octavian in Rhodes is well known. Herod came fearfully but determined to

maintain his throne and kingdom. His intrepidation arose from the fact that he was an intimate

friend of Anthony, who was Octavian’s latest enemy. But when he met with the future emperor,

he did not try to hide his friendship with Anthony in any way, but simply pleaded with

24

Octavian to believe that he would now be as loyal to him as he had in the past been loyal to

Anthony. Obviously, Octavian was impressed with Herod’s skill if not his sincerity; moreover,

he saw that the present interests of Rome would be well served if Herod remained as king of

the Jews and his ally in the East. Octavian thus granted Herod’s petitions for clemency, and he

was to keep his little kingdom for a time. Herod also was able to secure Cleopatra’s old claims

in the Jericho region and even a number of Greek cities on the Mediterranean coast and cities in

the TransJordan.

According to the latest version of Wikipedia, the following is the current consensus on

the chronology of the Herodian rule in Judea:

30s BCE : Map of Judea and Other Provinces of the Levant:

25

Judaea under Herod the Great.

30s BCE

39–37 BCE – War against Antigonus. After the conquest of Jerusalem and victory over
Antigonus, Mark Antony executes Antigonus.
36 BCE – Herod makes his 17-year-old brother-in-law, Aristobulus III of Israel, high priest,
fearing that the Jews would appoint Aristobulus III of Israel in his place.
35 BCE – Aristobulus III is drowned at a party, on Herod's orders.
32 BCE – The war against Nabatea begins, with victory one year later.
31 BCE – Israel suffers a devastating earthquake. Octavian defeats Mark Antony, so
Herod switches allegiance to Octavian, later known as Augustus.
30 BCE – Herod is shown great favour by Octavian, who at Rhodes confirms him as King of
Israel.

20s BCE

29 BCE – Josephus writes that Herod had great passion and also great jealousy concerning his
wife, Mariamne I. She learns of Herod's plans to murder her, and stops sleeping
with him. Herod puts her on trial on a charge of adultery. His sister, Salome I, was the
chief witness against her. Mariamne I's mother, Alexandra, made an appearance and
incriminated her own daughter. Historians say her mother was next on Herod's list to
be executed and she did this only to save her own life. Mariamne was executed, and
Alexandra declared herself Queen, stating that Herod was mentally unfit to serve.
Josephus wrote that this was Alexandra's strategic mistake; Herod executed her
without a trial.
28 BCE – Herod executed his brother-in-law, Kostobar (husband of Salome, father to
Berenice) for conspiracy. The same year he held a large festival in Jerusalem, as Herod
had built a Theatre and an Amphitheatre.
27 BCE – An assassination attempt on Herod was foiled. To honor Augustus, Herod rebuilt
Samaria and renamed it Sebaste.
25 BCE – Herod imported grain from Egypt and started an aid program to combat the
widespread hunger and disease that followed a massive drought. He also waives a
third of the taxes.
23 BCE – Herod built a palace in Jerusalem and the fortress Herodion (Herodium) in Judea.
He married his third wife, Mariamne II, the daughter of high priest Simon.
22 BCE – Herod began construction on Caesarea Maritima and its harbor. The Roman emperor
Augustus grants him the regions Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis to the
northeast. Circa 20 BCE – Expansion started on the Temple Mount; Herod completely
rebuilt the Second Temple of Jerusalem (see Herod's Temple).

10s BCE

Circa 18 BCE – Herod traveled for the second time to Rome.
14 BCE – Herod supported the Jews in Anatolia and Cyrene. Owing to the prosperity in
Judaea he waived a quarter of the taxes.

26

13 BCE – Herod made his first-born son Antipater (his son by Doris) first heir in his will.
12 BCE – Herod suspected both his sons (from his marriage to Mariamne I) Alexander and
Aristobulus of threatening his life. He took them to Aquileia to be tried. Augustus
reconciled the three. Herod supported the financially strapped Olympic Games and
ensured their future. Herod amended his will so that Alexander and Aristobulus
rose in the royal succession, but Antipater would be higher in the succession.
Circa 10 BCE – The newly expanded temple in Jerusalem was inaugurated. War against the
Nabateans began.

First decade BC[E]

9 BCE – Caesarea Maritima was inaugurated. Owing to the course of the war against the
Nabateans, Herod fell into disgrace with Augustus. Herod again suspected Alexander
of plotting to kill him.
8 BCE – Herod accused his sons by Mariamne I of high treason. Herod reconciled with
Augustus, who also gave him the permission to proceed legally against his sons.
7 BCE – The court hearing took place in Berytos (Beirut) before a Roman court. Mariamne I's
sons were found guilty and executed. The succession changed so that Antipater was
the exclusive successor to the throne. In second place the succession incorporated
(Herod) Philip, his son by Mariamne II.
6 BCE – Herod proceeded against the Pharisees.
5 BCE – Antipater was brought before the court charged with the intended murder of Herod.
Herod, by now seriously ill, named his son (Herod) Antipas (from his fourth marriage
with Malthace) as his successor.
4 BCE – Young disciples smashed the golden eagle over the main entrance of the Temple of
Jerusalem after the Pharisee teachers claimed it was an idolatrous Roman symbol.
Herod arrested them, brought them to court, and sentenced them. Augustus approved
the death penalty for Antipater. Herod then executed his son, and again changed his
will: Archelaus (from the marriage with Malthace) would rule as king over Herod's
entire kingdom, while Antipas (by Malthace) and Philip (from the fifth marriage with
Cleopatra of Jerusalem) would rule as Tetrarchs over Galilee and Peraea (Trans-
jordan), also over Gaulanitis (Golan), Trachonitis (Hebrew: Argob), Batanaea (now
Ard-el-Bathanyeh) and Panias. As Augustus did not confirm his will, no one received
the title of King; however, the three sons did attain rule of the stated territories. 22

Judea and Pax Romana

Unlike the proconsuls of Asia and Africa who were normally ex-consuls of Rome, or like

the proconsuls of the senatorial provinces (who were usually ex-praetors), or even the prefect of

Egypt, a direct appointee of the princeps, a number of the Eastern territories of Rome were

governed in Rome’s interest by native dynasties of “client kings.” For our purposes here, the

27

one with which we are most concerned is that of Judea under the Herods, so ruled from 40 B.C.

to A.D. 6 and again from A.D. 41 to 44. But other examples of Roman peace (or pacification)

existed in various places. Cappadocia, for example, was governed by a native dynasty until

Tiberius annexed most of it as a province on the death of its aged king, Archelaus, in A.D. 17.

Then there was Commagne, which lay southeast of Cappadocia and north of Syria. The king,

Antiochus III, had died around the same time as Archelaus; the Roman authorities thus added

his kingdom to the province of Syria. Yet, about twenty years later (37 A.D.), under Emperor

Gaius Caligula, it was restored to his son, Antiochus IV, who was allowed to add to it a

westward extension going toward eastern Galatia, and also include a coastal strip between

Pamphylia and Cilicia. He temporarily lost possession of his kingdom in ca. 40 A.D., but

Claudius ironically restored it to him when the latter entered into his reign as Roman emperor

in 41 A.D. Antiochus thereafter reigned several years as a friend and ally of Rome.

Such was to be the case in many of the provinces in the East (in Asia and Syria and Judea)

and likewise in the case of many large barbarian and semi-barbarian territories in the West (in

Gaul, Tarraconensis, Lusitania, Baetica, Mauretania, Raetia, Noricum, Germania, Belgica,

Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thracia, and even Britannia). And the lives of millions of

subjected peoples of numerous European, African, Semitic, and Asiatic peoples would

successively come under the domination of the Roman Caesars: Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius,

Nero, Vepasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus

Aurelius. From the time of vivacious Augustus until the stoic Marcus Aurelius, Rome ruled the

civilized world and established Roman order and law either by the gentle persuasion of

political pressure or by sheer force of arms. There was peace, regularly interrupted naturally by

various fierce local wars eventually dominated by the ever powerful and numerous Roman

legions. In the map below, one can surmise something of the extent of the Roman organization

of the civilized world in that time following the era of Christ:

28

Positive Aspects of Pax Romana

Despite the negative side of Pax Romana, there were beneficial characteristics to the vast

Roman empire and the order imposed by Rome’s mighty legions. This must not be overlooked

when one considers the Divine preparation for the Gospel and ponders how God used the

historical circumstances of the classical world to provide for the relatively rapid evangelism of

the Near Eastern and Western world during the first two centuries. There are at least four

29

aspects of the ancient Roman Empire that should be reckoned as positive factors for the birth

and growth of the Christian faith:

1. The political unity of the Roman Empire did produce a certain economic
and political stability, notwithstanding its many faults. This encouraged trade
between large cities and regions.
2. The military and trade routes meant relatively easy access to large numbers
of people (both by land and sea).
3. The universal use of Greek as a result of former conquests aided
communication.
4. The cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Empire – mixed cultures – enabled
easier cross-cultural evangelism e.g., Jews who were culturally Greek
(Barnabus from Cyprus, Paul the Roman citizen) were able to bridge cultures.

The political unity of the Roman Empire arose not only from the political order imposed by

a vast bureacracy of Roman officials and numerous military garrisons spread over the entire

ancient civilized world, but from the fact that Roman officials encouraged local and

interprovincial industry and trade. Not only did the various Roman legates, tribunes, and

governors encourage local crafts and all lucrative commerce, but under Roman supervision

multitudes of foreign nations began to develop a sense of human unity under a universal law.

Until this time (with the possible exception of the ancient Persians) no empire had created such

a since of the solidarity of mankind and so never before had any empire created an enviroment

favorable to reception of the Gospel. The truth of this assertion is intuitive because the Gospel

(cf. Romans 3-8 ) itself declares the unity of the human race under Adam’s sin with its Divine

penalty and at the same time the Divine remedy for that sin in Christ. The salvation offered in

this message invites men from every tongue, nation, and race to become a part of one universal

living family, which is the Christian church, the Body of Christ.

No ancient empire in either the East or West, not even that of Alexander the Great, had

given to men such a sense of their unity in a political organization. The Romans indeed believed

that their peculiar destiny was to establish a sense of political unity and order in the world. The

universal application of Roman law to all citizens within the empire was daily enforced upon

both native and foreign subjects and regular appeal was made to the impartial justice of Roman

courts. This tradition of universal and impartial law grew out of the early Roman tradition in

the customs of the early monarchy. These principles had been codified in the historic Twelve

30

Tables, which became an essential part of every schoolboy’s education. As the Roman legions

conquered new territories, Roman governors and scholars quickly realized that the great

principles of Roman law were also part of the laws of the all the nations being joined to the

empire. These local laws or traditions were incorporated into the Latin praetos peregrinus, the

bureaucrat entrusted with duty of handling cases in which foreigners were involved. This new

acquaintance with legal principles and systems of foreign nations enriched the Roman

jurisprudence. This expansion of the law codes and principles of justice had a definite

philosophical impact on Roman thinkers. They reasoned that the early Greeks had been correct

in their concept of a universal law whose principles were written into men’s nature (i.e.,

conscience) and that aspirations of the heart were observable by right reason. 23

Another process which helped nurture this idea of unity was the extension of Roman

citizenship to non-Romans. Ironically, this practice began shortly before the time of Christ and

was climaxed in 212 A.D. when Emperor Caracalla admitted all freemen into the privilege of

Roman citizenship. Since the Roman empire (e.g., Pax Romana) eventually included the whole

Mediterranean world, this practically meant that all men were under one system of law and

citizens of one vast earthly kingdom. Imperfect as the practice of Roman law was, it did have an

emphasis on the dignity of the individual and the notion of Roman citizenship implied the

availability of justice which fused men into a greater political unity even though they had

diverse racial and cultural histories. This helped to prepare men to understand that the

universal Savior of sin came to remove the penalty of death from all and to admit one into the

society of the redeemed. The Apostle Paul thus reminded the people of the church at Philippi

that they were now members of the commonwealth of heaven through Jesus Christ (Philippians

3:20).

The common system of Roman law and order made free movement possible throughout

the empire for most all of its citizens and its respected allies. Previous to the reign of Caesar

Augustus (27 B.C. – A.D. 14) it would have been much more difficult for messengers of the

Gospel to travel the Mediterranean and even in the East, because the world was divided into

small jealous kingdoms, isolated cities, and remote irascable tribes. With the extension of the

Pax Romana however, the empire was built and thus unity was created and stabilized for

31

convenience of travel and the spread of new ideas and goods. Pompey, for example, had swept

the pirates out of the Mediterranean, and later Roman legions kept the peace and secured the

roads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Such a relatively peaceful and ordered international scene

meant that Christian apostles and missionaries could move from one country to another and

one region to another with safety and freedom from fear or geographical obstacles.24

An excellent illustration of the unifying effect of Roman law and the political security of

Roman rule is found in the highly advanced Roman postal system. Rev. Michael R. Jones has

written a fine brief summary of this ancient service – ahead of its time and almost modern:

The Roman postal system was the most advanced in the Western world up until that
time. Postal carriers followed routes that allowed riders on horseback to cover up to 170
miles in a day and averaged 100 miles a day. This system used roads that lasted well into the
9th century before in the west and even longer in the East where the Byzantine Empire and
the Islamic empire centered in Baghdad absorbed the system into their own postal services.
While it was not always so reliable, it was still the most advanced the ancient world had seen
and was second only to China’s. This postal service allowed the apostles to correspond with
others from one end of the Empire to the other. Such an advanced system not only made it
possible for the apostles to correspond, it also almost guaranteed such correspondence since
it was an easy and reliable method of long-distance communication. The letters written
provide the basis for not only for the scholar’s and historian’s understanding of the ancient
church, they are also the foundation of the Christian’s theology and, despite some scholarly
objections to the contrary, are still the best source for the theology of the apostles and the
early church.25

As has been indicated by the second bullet point earlier, the epitome of Roman peace

and security is seen wonderful system of Roman roads and safe sea lanes on the Mediterranean.

Dr. George P. Fisher, distinguished Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale a little over a

century ago provided this unforgettable description:

. . . . Friedlander, in his learned discussion of this topic, has pointed out, that at
no time down to the beginning of the present century, has it been possible to make
journeys with so much ease, safety, and rapidity, as in the first centuries of the imperial
era. The motives and occasions of travel were quite as various then as now. The Empire
brought peace to the world. It was a new condition of mankind. The constant
employment of nations had been war. The ancient writers dwell with rapture upon the
reign of tranquility which now prevailed. The security of the traveller and . . . facility of
intercourse are a common theme of congratulations of writers from one end of the
Empire to the other. The majesty of Rome, as Pliny proudly declares, was the shield of
the wayfarer in every place. Epicetetus, and the Alexandrian Philo are especially fervid in

32

their remarks on this subject. They dilate on the busy appearance of ports and marts. “
Caesar,” writes the Stoic philosopher, “ has procured us a profound peace; there are
neither wars, nor battles, nor great robberies, nor piracies; but we may travel at all hours,
and sail from east to west. ” The vast territory subject to Rome was covered with a
network of magnificent roads; which moved in straight lines, crossing mountains and
bridging rivers, binding together the most remote cities, and connecting them all with
the capital. The deep ruts, worn in the hard basaltic pavement, and still visible in places
far from the metropolis, show to what extent they were used. Five main lines went out
from Rome to the extremities of the Empire. These, with their branches running in
whatever direction public convenience required, were connected at the sea-ports with
routes of maritime travel. A journey might have been made upon Roman highways,
interrupted only by brief trips upon the sea, from Alexandria to Carthage, thence
through Spain and France, and northward to the Scottish border ; then back through
Leyden, Cologne, Milan, eastward by land to Constantinople and Antioch, and thence to
Alexandria; and the distance transversed would have exceeded 7,000 miles. The traveller
could measure his progress by the milestones all along these roads; and maps of the
route, giving distances from place to place, with stopping-places for the night, facilitated
his journey. Augustus established a system of postal conveyances, which were used by
officers, couriers, and other agents of the government; but private enterprise provided
similar means of travel for the public generally. In the principal streets of large cities
carriages could be hired, and one could arrange for making a journey, in Italy at least, by
a method resembling the modern post, or vetturino. The fact that so extensive territories
were united under one government gave rise to a great deal of journeying from one part
to another. Magistrates, and official persons of every sort, were travelling to and from
their posts. There were frequent embassies from the provinces to Rome. Large bodies of
troops were transferred from place to place, and thus became acquainted with the
regions remote from their homes. A stream of travel flowed from all directions to the
capital; but there was also lively intercourse between the several provinces.
“ Greek scholars, ” says Friedlander, “ kept school in Spain; the women of a
Roman colony in Switzerland employed a goldsmith from Asia Minor; in the cities of
Gaul were Greek painters and sculptors; Gauls and Germans served as the body-guards
of a Jewish king at Jerusalem; Jews were settled in all the provinces. ” The Empire gave a
new impetus to commerce. There was everywhere one system of law, free trade with the
capital, and uniformity in coins, measures, and weights. In the reign of Claudius, an
embassy came to Rome from a prince from the island of Ceylon, who had been struck
with an admiration for the Romans by finding that the denairii, though stamped with the
images of different Emperors, were of just the same weight. In ancient times, mercantile
transactions could not, as now, be carried forward by correspondence. Hence merchants
were commonly travellers, visiting foreign markets, and negotiating with foreign produ–
cers and dealers, in person. Horace frequently refers to the unsettled, rambling life
characteristic of merchants. Pliny describes them as found in a throng upon every
accessible sea. In an epitath of a Phyrigian merchant, accidentally preserved, he is made
to boast of having sailed to Italy, round Cape Malea, seventy-two times !
The pirates, who before the time of Pompey and Caesar, had rendered
navigation so perilous, had been swept from the Mediterranean. The annexation of Egypt
enabled Augustus to establish a new route of commerce with the East, by way of the Nile
and the Arabian Gulf. Roman merchants visited every land. They had their ports for
trade in Britain, and on the coast of Ireland. They bought amber in the first century, from

33

the shores of the Baltic. They went with their caravans and vessels to Ethiopia and India.
The increase of luxury in capital stimulated trade. Whatever could gratify the palate was
brought from all quarters to the markets of Rome; and the same was true of the
multiform products of art and mechanical skill. 26

The Ancient Roman Road System27

34

The third bullet point earlier observed was that the universal use of Greek as a result of

former conquests aided communication in the Roman Empire. The Romans were heavily

indebted to the earlier culture of the Greeks. From the time of the early conquests of Rome in

the first century B.C. until the era of the further extension of the Empire at the end of the second

century, the common language of the realm was not the official Latin, but Greek, known as the

Koine . This was the language of the common working people, the language of the market place

and the port, and even the language of many of the learned of that time. Such a circumstance

would prove invaluable to the early Christian missionaries who would find by it an open door

to preach the Gospel to the multitudes of various peoples flung throughtout the Roman world.

It was no accident that the New Testament itself, the founding document of Christianity, would

be written in this universal language of the day. The esteemed late Professor Everett F. Harrison

(who taught at both Dallas and Fuller Seminaries) commented on this unique circumstance :

. . . . An Aramaic New Testament would have comparatively few readers outside
the nation Israel. On the other hand, if the message of the Christian faith could be sent
forth in the Greek tongue, which had become the truly international language of the day,
the Word could penetrate almost everywhere in the Graeco-Roman world . . . . In his
[Gods’s] providential overruling he gave the devout Hebrew heart a Greek tongue in
order to make itself intelligible to the world. . . . .28

Scholars differ much on the precise details, but most Greek philologists and his-torians

of Greek culture tentatively agree that the Greek language had its beginnings in ca. 1500 to 900

B.C. This period is called the formative period of Greek and during this time Greece was

divided up into three separate states and distinct languages : (1) Sparta, which spoke the Doric

dialect; (2) Athens, which spoke the Ionic dialect; (3) and Thebes, which spoke the Aeolic dialect.

Still later came the period of classical Greek from about the mid-tenth century until ca. 322 B.C.

This is sometimes called Attic Greek, and it was the ruling dialect. Attic Greek, an Ionic dialect,
was the language of the philosophers, of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It was one of the great

literary languages, for through it the deepest and most complex thoughts of man were

communicated. Classical Greek was the language of Athens in her “Golden Age,”; it was the

language of the historian Thucydides and the great political thinker, Demosthenes. In time,

however, the language began to break down — especially as Greek began to be spoken broadly

35

as a second language by foreign peoples. The late Princeton and Westminster professor of

Greek and New Testament (as well as theology), J. Gresham Machen has a wonderful account

of how this occurred:

Various causes contributed to make the Attic dialect dominant in the Greek-
speaking world. First and foremost must be put the genius of the Athenian writers. But
the political and commercial importance of Athens was also not without its effect. Hosts
of strangers came into contact with Athens through government, war and trade, and the
Athenian colonies also extended the influence of the mother city. The Athenian Empire,
indeed, soon fell to pieces. Athens was conquered first by Sparta in the Peloponnesian
wax, and then, in the middle of the fourth century before Christ, along with the other
Greek cities, came under the domination of the king of Macedonia, Philip. But the
influence of the Attic dialect survived the loss of political power; the language of Athens
became also the language of her conquerors.
Macedonia was not originally a Greek kingdom, but it adopted the dominant
civilization of the day, which was the civilization of Athens. The tutor of Philip's son,
Alexander the Great, was Aristotle, the Greek philosopher; and that fact is only one
indication of the conditions of the time. With astonishing rapidity Alexander made
himself master of the whole eastern world, and the triumphs of the Macedonian arms
were also triumphs of the Greek language in its Attic form. The empire of Alexander,
indeed, at once fell to pieces after his death in 323 B.C.; but the kingdoms into which it
was divided were, at least so far as the court and the governing classes were concerned,
Greek kingdoms. Thus the Macedonian conquest meant nothing less than the
Hellenization of the East, or at any rate it meant an enormous acceleration of the
Hellenizing process which had already begun.
When the Romans, in the last two centuries before Christ, conquered the eastern
part of the Mediterranean world, they made no attempt to suppress the Greek language.
On the contrary, the conquerors to a very considerable extent were conquered by those
whom they conquered. Rome herself had already come under Greek influence, and now
she made use of the Greek language in administering at least the eastern part of her vast
empire. The language of the Roman Empire was not so much Latin as it was Greek .
Thus in the first century after Christ Greek had become a world language. The
ancient languages of the various countries did indeed continue to exist, and many
districts were bilingual – the original local languages existing side by side with the
Greek. But at least in the great cities throughout the Empire—certainly in the East—the
Greek language was everywhere understood. Even in Rome itself there was a large
Greek-speaking population. It is not surprising that Paul's letter to the Roman Church is
written not in Latin but in Greek.
But the Greek language had to pay a price for this enormous extension of its
influence. In its career of conquest it experienced important changes. The ancient Greek
dialects other than Attic, although they disappeared almost completely before the
beginning of the Christian era, may have exerted considerable influence upon the Greek
of the new unified world. Less important, no doubt, than the influence of the Greek
dialects, and far less important than might have been expected, was the influence of
foreign languages. But influences of a more subtle and less tangible kind were mightily at

36

work. Language is a reflection of the intellectual and spiritual habits of the people who
use it. Attic prose, for example, reflects the spiritual life of a small city-state, which was
unified by an intense patriotism and a glorious literary tradition. But after the time of
Alexander, the Attic speech was no longer the language of a small group of citizens
living in the closest spiritual association; on the contrary it had become the medium of
exchange for peoples of the most diverse character. It is not surprising, then, that the
language of the new cosmopolitan age was very different from the original Attic dialect
upon which it was founded.
This new world language which prevailed after Alexander has been called not
inappropriately "the Koine." The word "Koine" means "common"; it is not a bad
designation, therefore, for a language which was a common medium of exchange for
diverse peoples. The Koine, then, is the Greek world language that prevailed from about
300 B.C. to the close of ancient history at about A.D. 500. 29

To this also may be added the explanation of Dr. Gerald Stevens, a contemporary Greek

scholar:

However, the use of Greek by non-Greeks altered the language. A continual meta–
morphosis transformed the ancient native dialects within the new world order of Alex–
ander. The fine nuance of meanings within the sophisticated Attic Greek began to blur.
Grammatical principles were “broken” (as English are told not to split infinitives but do
all the time). This second-language Greek became the common tongue of all, which we
call koine Greek. The New Testament Greek basically is this koine Greek, but also
includes literary Greek, as well as unusual forms to Semitic influence. 30

The last point to be addressed we have already hinted at, i.e., the cosmopolitan nature of

the Roman Empire with its blended cultures. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online

edition) gives a brilliant summary of the cosmopolitan character of the Roman Empire which

particularly emphasizes its Stoic universalizing philosophical ethos :

Stoic cosmopolitanism in its various guises was enormously persuasive throughout
the Greco-Roman world. In part, this success can be explained by noting how
cosmopolitan the world at that time was. Alexander the Great's conquests and the
subsequent division of his empire into successor kingdoms sapped local cities of much of
their traditional authority and fostered increased contacts between cities, and later, the
rise of the Roman Empire united the whole of the Mediterranean under one political
power. But it is wrong to say what has frequently been said, that cosmopolitanism arose
as a response to the fall of the polis or to the rise of the Roman empire. First, the polis' fall
has been greatly exaggerated. Under the successor kingdoms and even — though to a
lesser degree — under Rome, there remained substantial room for important political
engagement locally. Second, and more decisively, the cosmopolitanism that was so
persuasive during the so-called Hellenistic Age and under the Roman Empire was in fact
rooted in intellectual developments that predate Alexander's conquests. Still, there is no

37

doubting that the empires under which Stoicism developed and flourished made many
people more receptive to the cosmopolitan ideal and thus contributed greatly to the
widespread influence of Stoic cosmopolitanism.
Nowhere was Stoic cosmopolitanism itself more influential than in early
Christianity. Early Christians took the later Stoic recognition of two cities as independent
sources of obligation and added a twist. For the Stoics, the citizens of the polis and the
citizens of the cosmopolis do the same work: both aim to improve the lives of the
citizens. The Christians respond to a different call: “Render therefore unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21). On
this view, the local city may have divine authority (John 19:11; cf. Romans 13:1,4,7), but the
most important work for human goodness is removed from traditional politics, set aside
in a sphere in which people of all nations can become “fellow-citizens with the saints”
(Ephesians 2:20). 31

Ethlebert Stauffer, a famous German Protestant theologian who taught at the

Universities of Bonn, Halle-Wittenberg, Berlin, Tubingen, and who assumed a professorship at

the Erlangen Divinity School in 1953, achieved international fame as a scholar of Roman history

and its relationship to early Christianity. Professor Stauffer was also noteworthy because as a

young professor of New Testament Studies and Ancient History at the University of Bonn, he

was removed from his post in 1943 by the German authorities under Hitler for his firm anti-

Facist stance and his visceral opposition to Nazi ideology. After the fall of Hitler, he was

restored to his teaching post in 1946. Later, as a professor at Erlangen, he published his highly

applauded works on his research, Christ and the Caesars and the New Testament Theology (both in

1955).32 His description of the year of Christ’s birth is a classic exposition of the mood and

circumstances of the Roman world when Christ appeared. Even though this author believes he

is about two years too early (on the basis of other Biblical and historical evidence), neverthess

this brief section of Professor Stauffer’s of Jesus and His Story provides a fitting closure to this

chapter on the Pax Romana and the era of Augustus:

The year 7 B.C. was a fatalis annus, a year of destiny. In the heavens the planet
Jupiter entered the Great Conjunction, thus proclaiming the coming ruler of the final
Golden Age. In Rome Augustus reached the climax of his career, and Tiberius held his
great triumph ad maiorem Augusti patris gloriam – to the greater glory of Father Augustus.
On the Nile the Emperor was being celebrated as Freedom- giving Jove. On the
Euphrates the astrologers were setting out Palestine to seek the promised king of peace.
In the land of Israel, however, a tempest was brewing.

The Pax Romana and Birth of Jesus

The Pax Romana and Birth of Jesus

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à The Pax Romana and Birth of Jesus

Similaire à The Pax Romana and Birth of Jesus (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

The Pax Romana and Birth of Jesus