S
steve53
Guest
The conspiracy of Sejanus that was thwarted in late A.D. 31 set the stage for events of great import in the East, according to some theories.
Previously, for seventy years Rome had enjoyed peace and prosperity under Augustus and Tiberius. She was respected and feared by all.
Tiberius had no choice but to put down Sejanus quickly, and enacted proscriptions that made Rome and the Empire a dark place for years. It’s all in Tacitus.
What came out of this was the perception to the world that Rome was vulnerable. Who would succeed the aging Tiberius who continued to hide in Capri? Who would control the armies and navies of Rome? Was anarchy approaching?
The Parthian Empire made long-range plans to re-take the eastern part of the Roman empire- Armenia, Asia, the Jewish lands. They probably recruited Arabia (Nabotea) as an ally.
The descendants of Herod the Great- first and second generation- saw opportunity in the East to establish a Herod-based independent kingdom if Rome withdrew. Many left the city of Rome for points East to seek their fortune and their perceived birthright- Herodias and Agrippa among them. Certainly, in the city of Rome after the execution of Sejanus and bloody proscriptions, people were not as welcoming towards specious foreign “royalty” as they once were.
Also, the Jewish Second Temple High Priesthood was totally kept in power by Rome. With Rome weakening, what would happen to the Jewish East? The Zealots organized against the collaborating Priests- who were hated. Prophets and would-be Messiahs popped up and gained followers. John the baptist was the best of them before Jesus came on the scene.
Ultimately this lead to Jewish Revolt, which started in A.D. 66.
Regarding Sejanus specifically, certainly Pilate was his pick, though Tiberius knew him from the Imperial Guard. And Pilate was anti-Jewish, because that was the disposition of Sejanus. The Jews were thought to be clannish, aloof, worshiping their own god, having their own odd customs, and looking down their noses at Roman culture.
But we see a change in Pilate- some speculate- when Sejanus is no longer his protector. He was brutal, as we see from Philo and Josephus early on. After a time- maybe after Sejanus had been executed- we see a different Pilate. One who was civic-minded and wanted to bring in water to Jerusalem through an aqueduct system- even though the Jewish people rebelled against it. With Jesus, Pilate was the reluctant executioner. If Sejanus was in power, he would have no qualms about crucifying a religious troublemaker.
But with Tiberius taking back control, things were different. In an edict issued in A.D. 32, Tiberius ordered that the Jews were to be treated no differently than any other subject people in the Roman Empire.
Also in Pilate’s favor in his hopes of staying on was that Tiberius was loathe to remove a governor for any reason. Tiberius figured that one in power for so long had been sated to a degree with money extorted and stolen from the governed. Appoint a new governor, and corruption would bleed the people anew. Made no sense to change.
Also playing a role in Pilate’s attitude was the Temple priesthood. The Temple made a lot of money, and likely Pilate was given a lucrative share. That’s probably why Caiaphas was confident of Pilate’s ultimate execution of Jesus- Pilate was on the payroll to a certain degree.
Of course, Pilate wanted a peaceful Passover just as much as Caiaphas did.
So Sejanus is an interesting but secondary factor.
As far as crucifixion dating goes, if you are taken by A.D. 30 or A.D. 33, you as a matter of course have to squeeze in Herod Antipas’ war against Arabia- in which he arrested JB, then executed him, and then saw his army destroyed Arabia.
And all this would have had to have happened by either A.D. 29 or A.D. 32 as Jesus preached in the year leading up to his death after these events.
Both scenarios are untenable, especially if you go by Luke. In the former, JB started his ministry in A.D. 28. A lot had to happen in a single year! Not likely.
In the latter, you would have to believe that Herod Antipas was marshaling his own forces against Arabia even in the midst of a shocking near-revolution and prolonged proscriptions in Rome. Simply would not happen. Herod Antipas was a politician at heart, and would have hunkered down to see how the mayhem would play itself out.
A.D. 36 remains a strong contender.
Previously, for seventy years Rome had enjoyed peace and prosperity under Augustus and Tiberius. She was respected and feared by all.
Tiberius had no choice but to put down Sejanus quickly, and enacted proscriptions that made Rome and the Empire a dark place for years. It’s all in Tacitus.
What came out of this was the perception to the world that Rome was vulnerable. Who would succeed the aging Tiberius who continued to hide in Capri? Who would control the armies and navies of Rome? Was anarchy approaching?
The Parthian Empire made long-range plans to re-take the eastern part of the Roman empire- Armenia, Asia, the Jewish lands. They probably recruited Arabia (Nabotea) as an ally.
The descendants of Herod the Great- first and second generation- saw opportunity in the East to establish a Herod-based independent kingdom if Rome withdrew. Many left the city of Rome for points East to seek their fortune and their perceived birthright- Herodias and Agrippa among them. Certainly, in the city of Rome after the execution of Sejanus and bloody proscriptions, people were not as welcoming towards specious foreign “royalty” as they once were.
Also, the Jewish Second Temple High Priesthood was totally kept in power by Rome. With Rome weakening, what would happen to the Jewish East? The Zealots organized against the collaborating Priests- who were hated. Prophets and would-be Messiahs popped up and gained followers. John the baptist was the best of them before Jesus came on the scene.
Ultimately this lead to Jewish Revolt, which started in A.D. 66.
Regarding Sejanus specifically, certainly Pilate was his pick, though Tiberius knew him from the Imperial Guard. And Pilate was anti-Jewish, because that was the disposition of Sejanus. The Jews were thought to be clannish, aloof, worshiping their own god, having their own odd customs, and looking down their noses at Roman culture.
But we see a change in Pilate- some speculate- when Sejanus is no longer his protector. He was brutal, as we see from Philo and Josephus early on. After a time- maybe after Sejanus had been executed- we see a different Pilate. One who was civic-minded and wanted to bring in water to Jerusalem through an aqueduct system- even though the Jewish people rebelled against it. With Jesus, Pilate was the reluctant executioner. If Sejanus was in power, he would have no qualms about crucifying a religious troublemaker.
But with Tiberius taking back control, things were different. In an edict issued in A.D. 32, Tiberius ordered that the Jews were to be treated no differently than any other subject people in the Roman Empire.
Also in Pilate’s favor in his hopes of staying on was that Tiberius was loathe to remove a governor for any reason. Tiberius figured that one in power for so long had been sated to a degree with money extorted and stolen from the governed. Appoint a new governor, and corruption would bleed the people anew. Made no sense to change.
Also playing a role in Pilate’s attitude was the Temple priesthood. The Temple made a lot of money, and likely Pilate was given a lucrative share. That’s probably why Caiaphas was confident of Pilate’s ultimate execution of Jesus- Pilate was on the payroll to a certain degree.
Of course, Pilate wanted a peaceful Passover just as much as Caiaphas did.
So Sejanus is an interesting but secondary factor.
As far as crucifixion dating goes, if you are taken by A.D. 30 or A.D. 33, you as a matter of course have to squeeze in Herod Antipas’ war against Arabia- in which he arrested JB, then executed him, and then saw his army destroyed Arabia.
And all this would have had to have happened by either A.D. 29 or A.D. 32 as Jesus preached in the year leading up to his death after these events.
Both scenarios are untenable, especially if you go by Luke. In the former, JB started his ministry in A.D. 28. A lot had to happen in a single year! Not likely.
In the latter, you would have to believe that Herod Antipas was marshaling his own forces against Arabia even in the midst of a shocking near-revolution and prolonged proscriptions in Rome. Simply would not happen. Herod Antipas was a politician at heart, and would have hunkered down to see how the mayhem would play itself out.
A.D. 36 remains a strong contender.
