To expand on my last posts:
The Romans were likely not as cruel or as harsh on the Jews as we often imagine them to be. We just have the impression that they are because we usually tend to focus on the fighting and on the anti-Roman riots / rebellions that periodically arose at the time. The Roman Empire was no saint and Roman rule was not ideal, but it was no worse than the other empires that had ruled the Jews in the past. In fact, Rome was in a number of respects better than the last ones.
Unlike the Seleucids, which actively forced the Jews to adopt Greek culture, making the Jewish people adopt Roman culture and religion was not really part of Rome’s agenda. When Rome wanted an area Romanized, they did so and thoroughly (cf. Gaul (France), Iberia (Spain)). That didn’t happen with Judea.
Seriously, Pompey conquered the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea in the mid-1st century BC not because there was something economically or politically valuable in it, but
simply because the Romans wanted a bridge that would connect the much more important provinces of Syria and Egypt. In fact, as soon as the area was claimed in the name of Rome, government was handed back to Jewish leaders to govern in Rome’s place and the Romans left. The Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea was no longer an independent entity, but it’s not like there was an overnight total change in society or an active push from Rome to ‘Romanize’ its new territory. They hardly ‘annexed’ Palestine.
Herod the Great (anointed ‘King of the Jews’ by the Roman senate) did conquer the Hasmonean Kingdom using help from the Roman army, but as soon as he was done, he paid the Roman soldiers large bribes to ensure that they left. They never returned.
King Herod was semi-independent. Officially he was subject to Rome and thus had to contribute to the Empire in some way, but as long as he ruled correctly and fulfilled the necessary conditions, he was free to do whatever the heck he wanted. He was completely independent in domestic policy. He had his own currency. He had his own army. He ruled the Jews under traditional Jewish law, as a (part-)Jew himself (technically, he was Idumaean - Edomite - by ethnicity, but at this point, the Hasmoneans had conquered and assimilated the Idumaean people into the Jewish state and imposed Judaism/Jewish culture upon them, so in that sense he is a Jew). He was not a very popular king, and he was not the most righteous king, but he at least respected Jewish sensibilities. He did not try to force Greek or Roman culture on his Jewish subjects, and conversely never forced Jewish law on his gentile subjects.
When Herod died, the kingdom was divided between his three sons, all of whom never inherited his title of ‘king’. Archelaus the ethnarch got Judea and Samaria while Antipas and Philip (both tetrarchs) got the Galilee and Batanea, respectively. Antipas the tetrarch ruled the Galilee under the same terms and conditions as his father did his kingdom. Like Herod, he was also independent in domestic policy as long as he fulfilled his end of the bargain (which he did, for the most part). He had his own currency and his own soldiers and officials. He ruled Jewish subjects as Jews and generally observed Jewish law (at least in public).
In fact, the only reason why Archelaus’ ethnarchy became a Roman province (the province of Judaea) governed by a prefect was because Archelaus did not do his job properly by Roman standards. The Romans followed a non-interventionist policy and would have preferred a native strongman to rule the area in their stead, but Herod apparently did not have any other capable sons they could rely on to rule Judea proper and Samaria (which admittedly were more volatile regions compared to the other parts of Palestine), so Rome moved to plan B. This was actually
the first time Romans settled in to rule part of Palestine - as mentioned, the Romans did not settle there even when Pompey conquered it seventy years earlier. They just chose which Jews would rule the country and then trotted off.
Even though Judea and Samaria were now under direct Roman administration, the Roman governor apparently simply continued the non-interventionist policies that were in place since Herod. The prefects never Romanized the Jews and delegated day-to-day government into their hands, while they hid themselves from their sight for most of the year. They only turned up during public festivals just so the people would know that they’re there, but otherwise, Jews ran their own affairs. For the province of Judaea, in the absence of a capable native political leader, Rome fell back on the Jews’ own tradition: oligarchic rule by the aristocracy, especially the priestly aristocracy.
(The Jews at this point had known only two forms of government: monarchy and oligarchy. Now, as the Bible and history sort of show, human monarchy was a kind of failed experiment - many kings tended to be dictators and meddlers, just as the prophet Samuel warned
- so many people at this period apparently just preferred that a bunch of priests and aristocrats rule over them instead. At least the high priest was someone clearly chosen by God.)
