Part One:
Still a Republic at time of
Herod ‘the Great’
by
Damien F. Mackey
“[The Romans] conquered kings near and far,
and everyone who heard of their reputation was afraid of them. They
helped some men to become kings, while they deposed others; they had become a
world power. In
spite of all this, no Roman ever tried to advance his own position by wearing a
crown or putting on royal robes. They created a senate, and each day 320 senators came together
to deliberate about the affairs of the people and their well-being.
Each year they
entrusted to one man the responsibility of governing them and controlling their
whole territory”.
I Maccabees 8:12-16
Introduction
If I am correct in my recent merging of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV
‘Epiphanes’, with Herod ‘the Great’, in articles such as:
Antiochus 'Epiphanes' and Herod 'the Great'
Antiochus 'Epiphanes' and Herod 'the Great'. Part Two:
‘The King’ of Daniel 11
and:
King Herod 'the Great', Sulla,
and Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes'
then the conventional view that the reign of Herod ‘the Great’ sat largely
within the early Roman Empire period would need to be scrapped. For clearly,
during the Maccabean period, the Roman Republic was flourishing yet new.
I Maccabees 8:1-32 provides us with a wonderful description of Rome at
the time of Judas Maccabeus:
Judas [Maccabeus] had heard about the Romans and their reputation as
a military power. He knew that they welcomed all those who joined them as
allies and that those who came to them could be sure of the friendship of Rome.
People had told him about the wars the
Romans had fought and their heroic acts among the Gauls, whom they had
conquered and forced to pay taxes. He had been told what they had done in Spain when they captured the
silver mines and the gold mines there. By careful planning and persistence, they had conquered the whole
country, even though it was far from Rome. They had overcome the kings from
distant lands who had fought against them; they had defeated them so badly that
the survivors had to pay annual taxes. They had fought and conquered Philip and Perseus, kings of
Macedonia, and all who had joined them against Rome.
They had even defeated Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, who had
attacked them with 120 elephants, cavalry, chariots, and a powerful army.
They took him alive and forced him and
his successors to pay heavy taxes, to give hostages, and to surrender
India, Media, Lydia, and some of their
best lands. They took these and gave them to King Eumenes.
When the
Greeks made plans to attack and destroy them, the Romans learned of the plans and sent a
general to fight against them. The Romans killed many of the Greeks, took their
wives and children captive, plundered their possessions, occupied their land,
tore down their fortresses, and made them slaves, as they are today.
They also destroyed or made slaves of
other kingdoms, the islands, and everyone who had ever fought against them.
But they maintained their friendship
with their allies and those who relied on them for protection. They conquered
kings near and far, and everyone who heard of their reputation was afraid of
them. They helped some men
to become kings, while they deposed others; they had become a world power.
In spite of all this, no Roman ever
tried to advance his own position by wearing a crown or putting on royal robes.
They created a senate, and each day 320
senators came together to deliberate about the affairs of the people and their
well-being. Each year they
entrusted to one man the responsibility of governing them and controlling their
whole territory. Everyone obeyed this one man, and there was no envy or
jealousy among them.
Judas chose Eupolemus, the son of John and grandson of Accos, and
Jason son of Eleazar and sent them to Rome to make a treaty of friendship and
alliance with the Romans. He
did this to eliminate Syrian oppression, since the Jews clearly saw that they
were being reduced to slavery. After a long and difficult journey, Eupolemus and Jason reached Rome
and entered the Senate. They addressed the assembly in these terms:
Judas Maccabeus, his brothers, and the Jewish
people have sent us here to make a mutual defense treaty with you, so that we
may be officially recorded as your friends and allies. The Romans
accepted the proposal, and
what follows is a copy of the letter which was engraved on bronze tablets and
sent to Jerusalem to remain there as a record of the treaty:
May things go well forever for the Romans and
for the Jewish nation on land and sea! May they never have enemies, and may
they never go to war! But
if war is declared first against Rome or any of her allies anywhere,
the Jewish nation will come to her aid with
wholehearted support, as the situation may require. And to those at war with her, the Jews shall
not give or supply food, arms, money, or ships, as was agreed in Rome. The Jews
must carry out their obligations without receiving anything in return. In
the same way, if war is declared first against the Jewish nation, the Romans
will come to their aid with hearty support, as the situation may require.
And to their enemies there shall not be
given or supplied food, arms, money, or ships, as was agreed in Rome. The
Romans must carry out their obligations without deception. These are the
terms of the treaty that the Romans have made with the Jewish people.
But if, in the future, both parties
shall agree to add or remove anything, they shall act on their decision, and
whatever they add or remove shall be valid. Furthermore, concerning the
wrongs which King Demetrius is doing against the Jews, we have written him as
follows,
Why have
you treated our friends and allies, the Jews, so harshly?
If
they complain to us about you one more time, we will support their cause and go
to war against you on land and sea.
There does not appear to be any
evidence, though, in future struggles of the Maccabees that the Romans honoured
that promise, “if war is declared first against the Jewish
nation, the Romans will come to their aid with hearty support, as the situation
may require”.
Part Two: From Gaius Marius to Pompey the
Great
“Much like King Philip II of Macedon in previous Greek history, Marius
removed as many non-essential personnel and animals from his army as possible
and thus made it faster and easier to move on campaign”.
Introduction
Within my new arrangement of Hellenistic history, with the era of
Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ ‘collapsing’ into the time of Herod ‘the Great’ (see Part
One), there is no longer any chronological opportunity for certain conventionally
famous Roman Republicans, say from Gaius Marius to Julius Caesar.
Though we read in Part One, from I Maccabees 8, that the Roman
Republic - and not the Empire - was certainly functioning at this time.
And I have already also dumped the Hadrianic era of the Roman empire,
having merged it, too, with the time of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ – now with the
great Jewish revolutionary, Simon Bar Kochba, being identified with that most outstanding
amongst the family of Maccabeans (Hasmonaeans), Simon,
the High Priest.
Greek identifications for
famous ‘Republicans’
Some of the following identifications are tentative, with possibly better
alternatives to be discovered later.
Gaius Marius
He is conventionally dated to c. 100 BC.
Gaius Marius has become known as “a bloodthirsty tyrant” (see below).
Marc Hyden, who has written a book about Marius, asks the question:
Was Marius a Hero or Villain?
So, was Marius a hero or a villain? The truth is that he
was both. Early in Marius’ career, he proved to be a conscientious politician
even though he later violated Rome’s laws on term limits. However, this
provision was sometimes violated in times of great danger. Marius was also a
talented general. He concluded the long-running Jugurthine War, which no other
commander seemed capable of doing. He vanquished the menacing Cimbri, who had
previously routed numerous Roman armies. However, Marius’ legacy is muddled due
to the last chapter of his life.
Because of a petty dispute with his erstwhile
subordinate, Roman legions marched on their homeland as conquering armies for
the first time in history, which threw the Republic into chaos. Once Marius
returned to power, the man who once safeguarded the Republic evolved into a
bloodthirsty tyrant. This unfortunately ensured that his reputation would
forever be tainted. In fact, as is evident by my book Gaius Marius: The Rise and Fall of
Rome’s Saviour, 2,000 years later, it is still being debated how
Marius should remembered. ….
In looking for a Greek (Macedonian) alternative for Marius, I would
consider Philip II of Macedon, with whom Marius is compared at: https://steelfighting.com/2011/07/07/roman-consul-gaius-marius-and-the-marian-reforms/
Marius was
able to also reduce the size of his army by drastically limiting beasts of
burden to carry soldiers’ gear and ordered that soldiers carry most of their
equipment on their person. This reduction in army size as opposed to the added weight on the individual soldier still made for an army that was able to move on march faster than before.6 They were able to march approximately 20 miles a day on favorable road conditions while carrying roughly 80-90 pounds.7 Much like King Philip II of Macedon in previous Greek history, Marius removed as many non-essential personnel and animals from his army as possible and thus made it faster and easier to move on campaign.
equipment on their person. This reduction in army size as opposed to the added weight on the individual soldier still made for an army that was able to move on march faster than before.6 They were able to march approximately 20 miles a day on favorable road conditions while carrying roughly 80-90 pounds.7 Much like King Philip II of Macedon in previous Greek history, Marius removed as many non-essential personnel and animals from his army as possible and thus made it faster and easier to move on campaign.
Philip II, conventionally dated to 359-336 BC, likewise “was
an accomplished [ruler] and military commander in his own right” (https://www.ancient.eu/Philip_II_of_Macedon/), as
well as being ruthless and cunning: “He used bribery, warfare, and threats to secure his
kingdom”.
The
famous general Gaius Marius was supposedly the uncle of Julius Caesar (by
marriage to Caesar’s Aunt Julia).
A note on the Julians
Conventionally, this is a purely Roman patrician family:
The gens Julia
or Iulia was one of the most ancient patrician families at Ancient
Rome. Members of the gens attained the highest dignities of the state in the
earliest times of the Republic. The first of the family to obtain the consulship
was Gaius Julius Iulus in 489 BC.
The gens is perhaps best known, however, for Gaius
Julius Caesar, the dictator, and grand uncle of the emperor Augustus,
through whom the name was passed to the so-called Julio-Claudian dynasty of the 1st century
AD. The nomen Julius became very common in imperial
times, as the descendants of persons enrolled as citizens
under the early emperors began to make their mark in history.
In our new terms, though, we ought to expect Greek origins for the Julians.
My suggestion for a Greek Iulius
would be Iolaus, Alexander the Great’s
cup-bearer: https://thesecondachilles.com/tag/iolaus/
He [Alexander] was killed by his own people Taken literally this statement is wrong. The Macedonians either in part or
as a whole did not rise up against Alexander. If we take the writer to mean the
people who are alleged to have assassinated him – Antipater, Cassander and
Iolaus – then it is simply debatable. They could have murdered the king,
they had a motive to do so (Antipater’s fear that Alexander intended to kill
him), but it is surely significant that the first person to make the allegation
was Alexander’s mother, Olympias, who was at that time locked in battle with
Cassander, the last of the aforementioned three to survive.
….
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
He is conventionally dated to c. 100 BC.
Sulla’s Hellenistic persona is, once again, that most influential king, Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’.
See my:
King Herod 'the Great', Sulla, and
Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes'
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey)
He is conventionally dated to the mid-C1st BC.
The wealthy Pompey, who in the mid-60’s BC is considered to have formed what
has come to be known as the ‘First Triumvirate’ with Marcus Licinius Crassus
and Gaius Julius Caesar, is definitely a composite figure with certain Hellenistic
characteristics. See my series:
Pompey the Great: 'Roman Alexander'?
and:
But I also suspect that the legend of Pompey’s assaulting the Temple of
Yahweh in Jerusalem, and his killing of many Jews, may be based on tales
associated with the C1st AD prefect (praefectus)
of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate.
I shall be having more to say about that!
Pompey ‘Imitating’ Hellenistic?
“The
marble bust of Pompey is in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen). Its
somewhat incongruous appearance, the round face and small lidded eyes beneath
the leonine mane of hair, is because Pompey, the most powerful Roman of his
day, sought a comparison with Alexander the Great …”.
Pompey ‘Imitating’ Hellenistic?
Previously
I have quoted Nic Fields (Warlords of
Republican Rome: Caesar Against Pompey, 2010), who wrote:
His flatterers, so it was said, likened Pompey to
Alexander the Great, and whether because of this or not, the Macedonian king
would appear to have been constantly in his mind. His respect for the fairer
sex is comparable with Alexander’s, and Plutarch mentions that when the
concubines of Mithridates were brought to him he merely restored them to their
parents and families.
…. Similarly he treated the corpse of Mithridates
in a kingly way, as Alexander treated the corpse of Dareios, and ‘provided for
the expenses of the funeral and directed that the remains should receive royal
interment’. …. Also, like Alexander, he founded many cities and repaired many
damaged towns, searched for the ocean that was thought to surround the world,
and rewarded his soldiers munificently. Finally, Appian adds that in his third
triumph he was said to have worn ‘a cloak of Alexander the Great’. ….
It is interesting to learn that the original name of Antiochus IV
‘Epiphanes’, who, like Pompey, would desecrate the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem,
was likewise “Mithridates” (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes).
Fields again (p. 98):
In a sense Pompey personified Roman imperialism,
where absolute destruction was followed by the construction of stable empire
and the rule of law. It also, not coincidentally, raised him to a pinnacle of
glory and wealth. The client–rulers who swelled the train of Rome also swelled
his own. He received extraordinary honours from the communities of the east, as
‘saviour and benefactor of the People and of all Asia, guardian of land and
sea’. …. There was an obvious precedent for all this. As the elder Pliny later
wrote, Pompey’s victories ‘equalled in brilliance the exploits of Alexander the
Great’. Without a doubt, so Pliny continues, the proudest boast of our ‘Roman
Alexander’ would be that ‘he found Asia on the rim of Rome’s possessions, and
left it in the centre’. ….
Pompey is even supposed to have gone so far as to have tried to emulate
Alexander’s distinctive appearance: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/cleopatra/pompey.
The marble bust of Pompey is in the Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek (Copenhagen). Its somewhat incongruous appearance, the round face and
small lidded eyes beneath the leonine mane of hair, is because Pompey, the most
powerful Roman of his day, sought a comparison with Alexander the Great, whose
distinctive portraits were characterized by a thoughtful facial expression and,
more iconographically, locks of hair brushed back high from the forehead, a
stylistic form known as anastole, from the Greek “to put back.” ….
Did Pompey absorb – like I have argued may have been the case with Julius
Caesar – not only Alexander-like characteristics, but also general Hellenistic
ones?
Or, more to the point - in the context of this series - was the
semi-legendary “Pompey” a composite based upon Hellenistic personages?
And might that mean that the famous event of Pompey’s desecration (by his
presence therein) of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, supposedly in 63 BC:
The capture of the Temple mount was accompanied by
great slaughter. The priests who were officiating despite the battle were
massacred by the Roman soldiers, and many committed suicide; while 12,000
people besides were killed. Pompey himself entered the Temple, but he was so
awed by its sanctity that he left the treasure and the costly vessels untouched
(“Ant.” xiv. 4, § 4; “B. J.” i. 7, § 6; Cicero, “Pro Flacco,” § 67). The
leaders of the war party were executed, and the city and country were laid
under tribute. A deadly blow was struck at the Jews when Pompey separated from
Judea the coast cities from Raphia to Dora, as well as all the Hellenic cities
in the east-Jordan country, and the so-called Decapolis, besides Scythopolis
and Samaria, all of which were incorporated in the new province of Syria [,]
may be in fact a muddled version of that real historical incident when
Antiochus (Mithridates) ‘Epiphanes’ most infamously desecrated the Temple by
erecting an image of Zeus in his own likeness on the altar?
Or it may pertain to the sacrilegious actions later of Pontius Pilate in Judaea.
Era
of Pompey
about a century too
early
Having
already argued for the era of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ to be collapsed into the
time of Herod ‘the Great’ - a downward shift of more than a century and a half -
I am now of the tentative opinion that the era of Antipas (Antipater), conventionally
dated to c. 79 BC, properly belongs about a century later, to around 30 AD.
With the
composite “Pompey” perhaps being, in part, a recollection of the biblical and
historical Pontius Pilate, then Antipas becomes the Herod Antipas of that time.
John
Hyrcanus II - no doubt the same as John Hyrcanus I, the son of Simon the Hasmonaean
- who was deposed, then re-instated, would then perhaps become the once deposed
Annas the High Priest. About John Hyranus, so-called II, we read:
High priest from about 79 to
40 B.C. …. He had scarcely reigned three months when his younger
brother, Aristobulus, rose in rebellion; whereupon Hyrcanus advanced against
him at the head of his mercenaries and his Sadducean followers. Near Jericho
the brothers met in battle; many of the soldiers of Hyrcanus went over to
Aristobulus, and thereby gave the latter the victory. Hyrcanus took refuge in
the citadel of Jerusalem; but the capture of the Temple by Aristobulus
compelled Hyrcanus to surrender. A peace was then concluded, according to the
terms of which Hyrcanus was to renounce the throne and the office of high
priest (comp. Schürer, "Gesch." i. 291, note 2), but was to enjoy the
revenues of the latter office.
The struggle would have ended
here but for Antipater. That astute Idumean saw clearly that it
would be easier to reach the object of his ambition, the control of Judea,
under the government of the weak Hyrcanus than under the warlike and energetic
Aristobulus. He accordingly began to impress upon Hyrcanus' mind that
Aristobulus was planning his death, finally persuading him to take refuge with
Aretas, king of the Nabatæans. Aretas, bribed by Antipater, who also promised
him the restitution of the Arabian towns taken by the Hasmoneans, readily
espoused the cause of Hyrcanus and advanced toward Jerusalem with an army of
fifty thousand. ….
While this civil war was going
on the Roman general Scaurus went to Syria to take possession, in the name of
Pompey, of the kingdom of the Seleucids. He was appealed to by the brothers,
each endeavoring by gifts and promises to win him over to his side. At first
Scaurus, moved by a gift of four hundred talents, decided in favor of
Aristobulus. Aretas was ordered to withdraw his army from Judea, and while
retreating suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus. But when
Pompey came to Syria (63) a different situation arose. The conqueror of Asia,
who had decided to bring Judea under the rule of the Romans, took the same view
of Hyrcanus' ability, and was actuated by much the same motives, as Antipater:
as a ward of Rome Hyrcanus would be more acceptable than Aristobulus. When,
therefore, the brothers, and delegates of the people's party, which, weary of
Hasmonean quarrels, desired the extinction of the dynasty, presented themselves
before Pompey, he delayed the decision, in spite of Aristobulus' gift of a
golden vine valued at five hundred talents. The latter, however, fathomed the
designs of Pompey, and entrenched himself in the fortress of Alexandrium; but,
soon realizing the uselessness of resistance, surrendered at the first summons
of the Romans, and undertook to deliver Jerusalem over to them. The patriots,
however, were not willing to open their gates to the Romans, and a siege ensued
which ended with the capture of the city.
Thus, between the weakness of
Hyrcanus and the ambition of Aristobulus, Judea lost its independence.
Aristobulus was taken to Rome a prisoner, and Hyrcanus was reappointed high
priest, but without political authority. ….
Annas was also known as Ananus, which name may derive from John (Hyrcanus), or Johanan (less likely, I think, from Hyrc-anus). He, like John Hyrcanus, was once deposed,
but continued to wield great influence: http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e108
“Although deposed,
Annas continued to hold an
influential position in the Sanhedrin, and according to John 18 (but not
mentioned in the synoptic gospels) Annas
presided over a preliminary hearing of the case against Jesus before the trial
by Caiaphas”.
And again: http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/annas.htm
Annas was deprived by the royal priesthood by Roman authority. While
Annas was actually deposed, he had gained such a foothold while in office that
he continued to be the power in Israel, even though his son-in-law, Caiaphas,
was the legal high priest. He was regarded as the real high priest by the
stricter Jews and the people regarded him as God's high priest. Annas was
likely the richest man in Israel, controlling all the temple traffic
(money-changers, etc.). Besides Caiaphas, five of his sons and one of his
grandsons occupied the office of the high priest, so that Annas remained the
power behind the throne until the revolt of 66. The John mentioned in Acts 4
was [Annas's] son and was high priest in AD 36. ….
Continuing with Pompey the Great
Pompey ‘Imitating’
Hellenistic?
Previously
I have quoted Nic Fields (Warlords of Republican Rome: Caesar Against Pompey, 2010), who wrote:
His flatterers, so it was said, likened Pompey to
Alexander the Great, and whether because of this or not, the Macedonian king
would appear to have been constantly in his mind. His respect for the fairer
sex is comparable with Alexander’s, and Plutarch mentions that when the
concubines of Mithridates were brought to him he merely restored them to their
parents and families.
…. Similarly he treated the corpse of Mithridates
in a kingly way, as Alexander treated the corpse of Dareios, and ‘provided for
the expenses of the funeral and directed that the remains should receive royal
interment’. …. Also, like Alexander, he founded many cities and repaired many
damaged towns, searched for the ocean that was thought to surround the world,
and rewarded his soldiers munificently. Finally, Appian adds that in his third
triumph he was said to have worn ‘a cloak of Alexander the Great’. ….
It is interesting to learn that the original name of Antiochus IV
‘Epiphanes’, who, like Pompey, would desecrate the Temple of Yahweh in
Jerusalem, was likewise “Mithridates” (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes).
Fields again (p. 98):
In a sense Pompey personified Roman imperialism,
where absolute destruction was followed by the construction of stable empire
and the rule of law. It also, not coincidentally, raised him to a pinnacle of
glory and wealth. The client–rulers who swelled the train of Rome also swelled
his own. He received extraordinary honours from the communities of the east, as
‘saviour and benefactor of the People and of all Asia, guardian of land and
sea’. …. There was an obvious precedent for all this. As the elder Pliny later
wrote, Pompey’s victories ‘equalled in brilliance the exploits of Alexander the
Great’. Without a doubt, so Pliny continues, the proudest boast of our ‘Roman
Alexander’ would be that ‘he found Asia on the rim of Rome’s possessions, and
left it in the centre’. ….
Pompey is even supposed to have gone so far as to have tried to emulate
Alexander’s distinctive appearance: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/cleopatra/pompey.
The marble bust of Pompey is in the Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek (Copenhagen). Its somewhat incongruous appearance, the round face and
small lidded eyes beneath the leonine mane of hair, is because Pompey, the most
powerful Roman of his day, sought a comparison with Alexander the Great, whose
distinctive portraits were characterized by a thoughtful facial expression and,
more iconographically, locks of hair brushed back high from the forehead, a
stylistic form known as anastole, from the Greek “to put back.” ….
Did Pompey absorb – like I have argued may have been the case with Julius
Caesar – not only Alexander-like characteristics, but also general Hellenistic
ones?
Or, more to the point - in the context of this series - was the
semi-legendary “Pompey” a composite based upon Hellenistic personages?
And might that mean that the famous event of Pompey’s desecration (by his
presence therein) of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, supposedly in 63 BC:
The capture of the Temple mount was accompanied by
great slaughter. The priests who were officiating despite the battle were
massacred by the Roman soldiers, and many committed suicide; while 12,000
people besides were killed. Pompey himself entered the Temple, but he was so
awed by its sanctity that he left the treasure and the costly vessels untouched
(“Ant.” xiv. 4, § 4; “B. J.” i. 7, § 6; Cicero, “Pro Flacco,” § 67). The
leaders of the war party were executed, and the city and country were laid
under tribute. A deadly blow was struck at the Jews when Pompey separated from
Judea the coast cities from Raphia to Dora, as well as all the Hellenic cities
in the east-Jordan country, and the so-called Decapolis, besides Scythopolis
and Samaria, all of which were incorporated in the new province of Syria [,]
may be in fact a muddled version of that real historical incident when
Antiochus (Mithridates) ‘Epiphanes’ most infamously desecrated the Temple by
erecting an image of Zeus in his own likeness on the altar?
Or it may pertain to the sacrilegious actions later of Pontius Pilate in
Judaea.
Era of Pompey
about a century too
early
Having
already argued for the era of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ to be collapsed into the
time of Herod ‘the Great’ - a downward shift of more than a century and a half
- I am now of the tentative opinion that the era of Antipas (Antipater), conventionally
dated to c. 79 BC, properly belongs about a century later, to around 30 AD.
With
the composite “Pompey” perhaps being, in part, a recollection of the biblical
and historical Pontius Pilate, then Antipas becomes the Herod Antipas of that
time.
John
Hyrcanus II - no doubt the same as John Hyrcanus I, the son of Simon the
Hasmonaean - who was deposed, then re-instated, would then perhaps become the
once deposed Annas the High Priest. About John Hyranus, so-called II, we read:
High priest from about 79 to
40 B.C. …. He had scarcely reigned three months when his younger brother,
Aristobulus, rose in rebellion; whereupon Hyrcanus advanced against him at the
head of his mercenaries and his Sadducean followers. Near Jericho the brothers
met in battle; many of the soldiers of Hyrcanus went over to Aristobulus, and
thereby gave the latter the victory. Hyrcanus took refuge in the citadel of
Jerusalem; but the capture of the Temple by Aristobulus compelled Hyrcanus to
surrender. A peace was then concluded, according to the terms of which Hyrcanus
was to renounce the throne and the office of high priest (comp. Schürer,
"Gesch." i. 291, note 2), but was to enjoy the revenues of the latter
office.
The struggle would have ended
here but for Antipater.
That astute Idumean saw clearly that it would be easier to reach the object of
his ambition, the control of Judea, under the government of the weak Hyrcanus
than under the warlike and energetic Aristobulus. He accordingly began to
impress upon Hyrcanus' mind that Aristobulus was planning his death, finally
persuading him to take refuge with Aretas, king of the Nabatæans. Aretas,
bribed by Antipater, who also promised him the restitution of the Arabian towns
taken by the Hasmoneans, readily espoused the cause of Hyrcanus and advanced
toward Jerusalem with an army of fifty thousand. ….
While this civil war was going
on the Roman general Scaurus went to Syria to take possession, in the name of
Pompey, of the kingdom of the Seleucids. He was appealed to by the brothers,
each endeavoring by gifts and promises to win him over to his side. At first
Scaurus, moved by a gift of four hundred talents, decided in favor of
Aristobulus. Aretas was ordered to withdraw his army from Judea, and while
retreating suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus. But when
Pompey came to Syria (63) a different situation arose. The conqueror of Asia,
who had decided to bring Judea under the rule of the Romans, took the same view
of Hyrcanus' ability, and was actuated by much the same motives, as Antipater:
as a ward of Rome Hyrcanus would be more acceptable than Aristobulus. When,
therefore, the brothers, and delegates of the people's party, which, weary of
Hasmonean quarrels, desired the extinction of the dynasty, presented themselves
before Pompey, he delayed the decision, in spite of Aristobulus' gift of a
golden vine valued at five hundred talents. The latter, however, fathomed the
designs of Pompey, and entrenched himself in the fortress of Alexandrium; but,
soon realizing the uselessness of resistance, surrendered at the first summons
of the Romans, and undertook to deliver Jerusalem over to them. The patriots,
however, were not willing to open their gates to the Romans, and a siege ensued
which ended with the capture of the city.
Thus, between the weakness of
Hyrcanus and the ambition of Aristobulus, Judea lost its independence.
Aristobulus was taken to Rome a prisoner, and Hyrcanus was reappointed high
priest, but without political authority. ….
Annas was also known as Ananus, which name may derive from John (Hyrcanus), or Johanan (less likely, I think, from Hyrc-anus). He, like John Hyrcanus, was once
deposed, but continued to wield great influence: http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e108
“Although deposed,
Annas continued to hold an
influential position in the Sanhedrin, and according to John 18 (but not
mentioned in the synoptic gospels) Annas
presided over a preliminary hearing of the case against Jesus before the trial
by Caiaphas”.
And again: http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/annas.htm
Annas was deprived by the royal priesthood by Roman authority. While
Annas was actually deposed, he had gained such a foothold while in office that
he continued to be the power in Israel, even though his son-in-law, Caiaphas,
was the legal high priest. He was regarded as the real high priest by the
stricter Jews and the people regarded him as God's high priest. Annas was
likely the richest man in Israel, controlling all the temple traffic
(money-changers, etc.). Besides Caiaphas, five of his sons and one of his
grandsons occupied the office of the high priest, so that Annas remained the
power behind the throne until the revolt of 66. The John mentioned in Acts 4
was [Annas's] son and was high priest in AD 36. ….
In common Croesus and Crassus: Disgustingly rich; powerful; fought against the east, Persians, Parthians; captured; killed.
I’m Marcus Licinius Crassus,
No rich man could ever surpass us.
Wanted people to say I was brave,
But I lost my first fight and hid in a cave.
Living there could be a pauper’s nightmare,
But if you’re rich like me then you don’t care.
I called my slave to the cave to ask it,
To cook a feast and lower in a basket.
https://www.academia.edu/14752305/Jesus_Christ_was_the_Model_for_some_legends_surrounding_Julius_Caesar
Part Three:
Crassus, Cicero and Julius Caesar
In common Croesus and Crassus: Disgustingly rich; powerful; fought against the east, Persians, Parthians; captured; killed.
It can either be said today, “as rich as
Croesus”, or, “as rich as Crassus”.
Marcus Licinius Crassus
He is conventionally dated to c. 115-53 BC.
We have already had some fun with the ‘filthy rich’ Crassus, supposedly one
member of the ‘First Triumvirate’. See my article:
Croesus and Crassus
I’m Marcus Licinius Crassus,
No rich man could ever surpass us.
Wanted people to say I was brave,
But I lost my first fight and hid in a cave.
Living there could be a pauper’s nightmare,
But if you’re rich like me then you don’t care.
I called my slave to the cave to ask it,
To cook a feast and lower in a basket.
Horrible
Histories
A decade after his fellow triumvir, Pompey ‘the
Great’, was supposed to have desecrated the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem (63
BC), Crassus is said to have done the very same (53 BC). As I
noted in the above article:
“More reminiscent of that
persecutor [Antiochus] were the events involving Crassus in 53. Crassus
not only entered the temple, as Pompey had, but he also robbed it
as Antiochus had. In addition, Plutarch (Crass. 17. 5-6) describes
the plundering of a temple at Hierapolis in Syria by Crassus, the
same temple that is said to have been plundered by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (Granius Licinianus, Ann. 28). Finally, Crassus's
defeat at the hands of the Parthians, and his death during that
eastern campaign, were also reminiscent of Antiochus. As argued above,
this was probably the impetus to the revolt following his death, but
it probably also had a more lasting effect.
I shall clarify this point:
in asserting similarities between the actions of Pompey and Crassus with
Antiochus Epiphanes, I neither maintain an identity of the causes and
the motivations of the revolts of the first century BCE against the
Romans with those of the Maccabean revolt against
Antiochus, as argues by William Farmer and by Martin Hengel … nor do I
agree with them that those motivations were primarily religious”. ….
In
this series, though, I am (contrary to the above quote) ‘asserting similarities between the actions of Pompey and Crassus
with Antiochus Epiphanes’ and I am ‘maintaining an identity of the causes and the motivations … with
those of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus, as argued by William Farmer and by Martin Hengel …’.
Thus,
finding some definite similarities between Crassus and Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’,
I can continue to pursue my ‘Hellenisation’ of supposed C1st BC Roman
Republicans.
Crassus
is, however, like Pompey again, a composite character (and non-historical).
For,
apart from his likenesses to the Seleucid king, Antiochus, he has other
features in common with the semi-legendary composite king, Croesus - who has,
in turn, likenesses to the Aztec, Montezuma, another entirely fictitious character
and famous under that name in various Indian (including Apache) legends. See my
articles:
Croesus and Montezuma
and:
Croesus and Montezuma. Part Two: Montezuma and early
Genesis
Marcus Tullius Cicero
He is conventionally dated to c. 106-43 BC.
If he were to be lined up with a Greek alter ego, I would suggest – have
suggested:
Ptolemy IX “Chickpea” and Cicero “Chickpea”
“… I suggest that Cicero explicitly
employs unhistorical (or at least not certifiably true) exempla, with a view to
the internal consistency of the dialogues' fictional world”.
Dan Hanchey
I wrote there:
Some obvious
similarities between the text-book Ptolemy Soter (so-called IX) and Cicero are their
supposed beginnings before 100 BC, and their sharing of a name, or nickname,
meaning “Chickpea”. In the book, Language
Typology and Historical Contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols (eds. B.
Bickel et al.), we read as follows
about this name (p. 303):
The possible prehistory
of *ḱiḱer- is more interesting. The
attested forms are Latin (Glare 1996) cicer
‘chickpea’ (Cicer arietinum), cicera ‘chickling vetch’ (Lathyrus sativus), Armenian siseṙn ‘chickpea’, Macedonian
(Hesychius) kíkerroi (Lathyrus ochrus), and Serbo-Croatian sȁstrica (Lathyrus cicera or Lathyrus
sativus). …. There is also the possibility of Greek kriós, ‘chickpea’, which Pokorny (1994: 598) tentatively suggests
might be from *kikriós with dissimilation,
and Hittite kikris, a food item used
in a mash, and measured in handfuls. ….
Likewise, Ptolemy was, Cicero was, contemporaneous with a Cleopatra, who
had no great love for the “Chickpea”, or vice versa.
In the case of Ptolemy, we read (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy-IX-Soter-II): “Although
[Cleopatra, so-called III] preferred his younger brother, Ptolemy Alexander,
popular sentiment forced the
dowager queen to dismiss him and to associate Ptolemy Soter on the throne with
herself”.
In parallel fashion, Cleopatra [so-called VII] ruled as co-regent with
Ptolemy [so-called XII]: “Before his death, Ptolemy XII chose his daughter Cleopatra VII as his
coregent. In his will, he declared that she and her brother Ptolemy XIII should rule the kingdom together”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_XII_Auletes).
Interestingly, Cicero, according to what we read at this site, is supposed to
have commented unfavourably on this latter situation:
Throughout his long-lasting reign the principal aim of Ptolemy [XII] was to
secure his hold on the Egyptian throne so as to eventually pass it to his
heirs. To achieve this goal he was prepared to sacrifice much: the loss of rich
Ptolemaic lands, most of his wealth and even, according to Cicero, the very
dignity on which the mystique of kingship rested when he appeared before the
Roman people as a mere supplicant. As for Cicero and Cleopatra: “Without doubt Cicero
was hoping for bad news about Cleopatra. He did not like Greeks and he did not like women, and most of all
he hated the Greek woman Cleopatra ...”. (Michael Foss, The Search for Cleopatra, 1999). ….
Gaius Julius Caesar
He is conventionally dated to c. 100-44 BC.
I
previously in this series had suggested an Hellenistic origin for the clan
name, Julius.
To
make matters really complicated, there is supposed to have been an ‘Antiochus
Epiphanes’ at the time of the emperor Hadrian – and I have already identified the Antiochus Epiphanes with the emperor
Hadrian:
Antiochus 'Epiphanes'
and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: "… a mirror
image"
and:
Antiochus 'Epiphanes' and Emperor
Hadrian. Part Two: "Hadrian … a second Antiochus"
https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_
and, guess what? - this
Antiochus Epiphanes had the name of Julius Caesar. He was, supposedly, Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes (Philopappus).
Julius Caesar, the
great man, acclaimed by some to have been the perfect man, never existed. He
was, like Pompey, a composite of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes.
Macedonian Greek, not
Roman.
And certain outstanding
and miraculous aspects of Caesar’s legend were based on a truly great JC: Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was the Model for
some legends surrounding Julius Caesar
https://www.academia.edu/14752305/Jesus_Christ_was_the_Model_for_some_legends_surrounding_Julius_Caesar
Part Four:
Daniel 2’s Fourth Kingdom not Rome
“The only real difficulty with
understanding the 4th kingdoms of Dan. 2 and 7 and the goat of Dan.
8 as the Macedonian Empire is an artificial one; that is, it goes against
popular interpretations which have dominated discussions about Daniel for some
time”.
Dr.
Craig Smith
It is to be hoped that this series, having merged the most famous Roman
Republican names into real and actual Macedonian-Greek rulers, for the most
part, may have settled once and for all the identification of Daniel 2’s “Fourth
Kingdom”, as Greece, and definitely not Roman.
Introduction
Despite our having found that there was a strong and emerging Roman
Republic at the time of the Maccabees, we have determined that some of the Republic’s
leading lights, conventionally speaking, were simply later adaptations of (generally)
Hellenistic Greeks.
For instance:
- Marius, adapted from Philip of Macedon;
- Sulla, adapted from Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’/Herod;
- Pompey, a composite of e.g. Alexander the Great; Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’; and perhaps Pontius Pilate;
- Crassus, similar to Pompey, but perhaps also including Croesus;
- Cicero (“Chick-pea”), adapted in part from Ptolemy IX Lathyros (“Chick-pea”);
- Julius Caesar, a composite of Alexander the Great; Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’; and Jesus Christ.
Greece or
Rome?
Dr. Craig Smith introduces both the Greek and Roman interpretations of Daniel
2:
Rome or Greece: Interpreting the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 2
In Daniel
2, there is a prophecy about a large statue made from four different
metals. Within Daniel 2, each portion of the statue is stated to be
symbolic of a kingdom. The identity of the first kingdom is made explicit
in Daniel 2:38 where it is identified as the Babylonian Empire, headed at that
time by Nebuchadnezzar. The identity of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th kingdoms,
however, is less obvious, though the text seems to say that these are
successive kingdoms (i.e. there do not appear to be gaps between the prophesied
kingdoms).
It has been common practice among Christians since Jerome (347-420 A.D.) to interpret the 4th of these kingdoms as
being the Roman Empire. The primary reason for this seems to be that
Daniel predicted that, during the 4th kingdom a stone “not cut with
human hands” (Dan. 2:34) would strike the kingdom and destroy it. This
stone has long been understood to be Jesus of Nazareth, who was born during the
Roman era. While symbolically satisfying for obvious reasons, this
interpretation is simply not as strong as another, far older interpretive
option which understands the 4th kingdom to be the Macedonian/Greek
Empire as established by Alexander the Great. As I will argue here,
this interpretation ultimately does a much better job of staying true to the
biblical text itself and to the historical events that Daniel clearly foretold
several centuries earlier. ….
But, now,
with my new series, the “Merging [of the] Maccabean
and Herodian ages”, it has become possible for Daniel’s Fourth Kingdom,
as a Greek kingdom, to be struck by that stone “not cut with human hands” (Dan. 2:34), which is indeed Jesus of
Nazareth (Matthew 21:42):
“Jesus
said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone the builders
rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is
marvelous in our eyes”’?”
Dr Craig Smith now proceeds to give his:
Reasons for understanding Daniel’s 4th kingdom as the Macedonian/Greek Empire:
1. The 4th kingdom in Dan. 2 (A), the 4th
beast/kingdom in Dan. 7 (B) and the goat in Dan. 8 (C) all appear to be
symbolic of the same earthly kingdom which Dan. 8:21 explicitly identifies as
belonging to the “king of Greece.”
a. The first three kingdoms in Dan. 2 and the first three
beasts/kingdoms in Dan. 7 are obviously parallel, leading us to assume that
they will also be parallel in regards to their respective 4th
kingdom. The connection between the 1st,
2nd and 3rd kingdoms in Dan. 2 & the 1st,
2nd and 3rd kingdoms in Dan. 7 is obvious and widely, if
not universally, accepted. If these two prophecies are each speaking
about the same kingdoms in the first three instances, then it is most natural
to assume that they are also speaking about the same 4th
kingdom. Even apart from any direct evidence of parallels between the 4th
kingdom in Dan. 2 and the 4th beast/kingdom in Dan. 7 (see below),
it would still be most natural to assume the two prophecies are detailing the
same 4th kingdom simply because these two prophecies have been
paralleling one another in the first three instances.
b. There are also explicit parallels of content between the 4th
kingdoms of Dan. 2 & 7 and the goat of Dan. 8.
(1) In all three prophecies, there is a reference to God’s activity in
demolishing human kingdoms. In Dan. 2 this happens during the 4th
kingdom (a stone “not cut by human hands”, 2:34). In Dan. 7 it happens
during the 4th kingdom (the Ancient of Days destroys the 4th
beast; 7:9-11). These parallel references also seem to correspond to the
statement in Dan. 8 that the small horn which came from the goat was “broken
without human agency,” a phrase which is quite similar to the description of a
stone “not cut by human hands” in 2:44.
(2) Similarities between the unidentified beast of Dan. 7 and the goat
of Dan. 8 are substantial.
- Both overtake the whole earth with great power and speed
- Both are initially unified under a single leader but are then split into factions
- A small horn which eventually emerges from one of the splintered factions is described in considerable detail in both Dan. 7 and Dan. 8, including statements of the horn’s boastfulness and opposition to God’s saints. This small horn was destroyed by the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:9-12, a prediction which appears to be repeated in Dan. 8:25 where it is said to be “broken without human agency.”
It
would appear that the unidentified beast of Dan. 7 is identified and further
described by the prophecy of the goat in Dan. 8.
It seems clear that the 4th kingdom of Dan. 2 (A) and the 4th
kingdom of Dan. 7 (B) correspond to one another, so A=B. It also seems
clear that the 4th kingdom of Dan. 7 (B) corresponds to the goat of
Dan. 8 (C), so B=C. If A=B and B=C then A=C; i.e. the goat of Dan. 8 must
also correspond to the 4th kingdom of Dan. 2. All three
references of these passages prophesy about the same kingdom. Since Dan.
8:21 explicitly identifies its 4th kingdom as being ruled by the
“king of Greece”, then the 4th kingdom of Dan. 2 and the goat of
Dan. 8 are also ruled by the “king of Greece”; i.e. this is the
Macedonian/Greek Empire.
2. The details of the 4th kingdom in Dan. 2 & 7 and
the details of the goat in Dan. 8 fit the historical events of the
Macedonian/Greek Empire extremely well. Conversely, the specific details
do not correspond naturally to events from the Roman era.
a. Alexander the Great was the strongest military leader the world
had ever seen. This fits the descriptions of a
kingdom of iron which tramples all the other kingdoms (Dan. 2) as well as the
fearsomeness of the goat (Dan. 8) and the teeth of iron possessed by the 4th
beast in Dan. 7. There is no particular reason why this could not also
apply to the Roman Empire as it was also wide-spread and extremely
powerful. However, there is no one individual closely associated with the
rise of the Roman Empire in the ancient world and Daniel clearly associates a single
leader with this kingdom’s earliest stages.
b. Alexander conquered the ancient world in an astonishingly short
time (about 3 years). This fulfilled the prophecy about
“coming over the surface of the earth without touching the ground” (i.e.
advancing at great speed; 8:5). There is simply no similar concept of
rapid conquest associated with Rome.
c. Alexander was the first non-oriental king to rule this area
(i.e. he was “different from the others” since the Babylonian, Median and
Persian Empires were all oriental; 7:7).
This would also be true of Rome and, as a republic in its earlier stages, its
form of government might also fit this prophecy.
d. Right after conquering the world, Alexander died unexpectedly,
leaving no children. His empire was splintered into four initial sections
each headed by one of his four generals (a divided kingdom; 2:41, divided into
four initial horns; 8:8, 8:22, also 11:6).
These eventually gave rise to multiple kings who warred with one another (10
horns; 7:7, 7:24]). There is no easy way to fit these prophetic details
with the Roman Empire.
e. The small horn which eventually grew up out of the remains of
this 4th kingdom fits the infamous Antiochus Epiphanes very well. His very name, Epiphanes, means “God manifest” (“magnified itself
to be equal with the Commander of the host”; 8:11) and was self-chosen
(boasting; 7:8, 7:20). In 167 B.C, he destroyed Jerusalem, defiled the
temple and rendered it unusable for sacrifices (which fits the details of Dan.
8 extremely well).
3. Other details of Daniel beyond the prophecies of 2,7 & 8
also cohere well if we understand the 4th kingdom and the goat to be
references to the Macedonian Empire.
In particular, the references to the king of the North and the king of the
South in Dan. 11 fit perfectly with the Seleucid (northern) and Ptolemic
(southern) regimes which emerged from the four-way split of the Macedonian
Empire.
Difficulties with this view:
Mackey’s comment: Some of what Dr. Smith has to say from here on could
benefit, I believe, from my new chronological perspective: “Merging [of the] Maccabean
and Herodian ages”.
The only real difficulty with understanding the 4th kingdoms
of Dan. 2 & 7 and the goat of Dan. 8 as the Macedonian Empire is an
artificial one; that is, it goes against popular interpretations which have
dominated discussions about Daniel for some time. As we have seen,
though, it does not go against the biblical or historical evidence. From
that perspective, there is little or no problem with this interpretation.
However, since it flies in the face of presently popular understandings, this
bears some address.
The strongest argument for the 4th kingdom of Dan. 2 and 7
being the Roman Empire is the arrival of the rock/Ancient of Days/”one like a
son of man” during the 4th kingdom.
If this is Jesus, who did not arrive during the Macedonian Empire but during
the Roman [sic], then the 4th kingdom would have to be the Roman
Empire, in spite of all the evidence considered above. However, these are
not all references to Jesus and in fact, the reference to Jesus (“the one like
a son of man” which was Jesus’ favorite title for himself) is clearly distinct
from the Ancient of Days. Moreover, the “one like a son of man” arrives after the Ancient of Days
has destroyed the 4th kingdom’s power…possibly a considerable amount
of time later.
1. The “rock not cut by human hands” in Dan. 2 is not the same as
the “one like a son of man” in Dan. 7.
It is clear in Dan. 7 that it is the appearance of the Ancient of Days
who destroys the power of the beasts/kingdoms, but it is also clear that the
Ancient of Days is not the same as the one “like a son of man”. The “one like a
son of man” receives his power/dominion from
the Ancient of Days, so they cannot be the same person. The rock “not cut
by human hands” of Dan. 2, the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7 and the power which
destroys the small horn in Dan. 8:25 are likely the same, but the “one like a
son of man” seems to be distinct (though obviously connected).
2. The arrival of the “one like a son of man” in Dan. 2 seems to
come sometime after the destruction of the 4th kingdom, not during it.
Daniel says that the Ancient of Days destroyed the fourth beast and the
power of all the beasts/kingdoms, but that an “extension of life” was granted
to the beasts (7:13-14). The “one like a son of man” only appears after this
extension. If the 4th kingdom is the Macedonian Empire, this
works perfectly. God destroyed the small horn, Antiochus Epiphanes (who we know
died not in battle but from either a sickness or a fall from his chariot…i.e.
not by human hands), fatally wounding what was left of the splintered power of
the Macedonian Empire. The Maccabean revolt in Israel followed [sic] this,
throwing off much of the Greek power over Israel. However, the Greeks
continued to rule Israel albeit in reduced capacity until the Romans came in 63
AD. Jesus then appeared soon after Rome came on the scene and Rome was
eventually swallowed by Christianity when it became a Christian empire.
In effect, Rome was a part of God’s final destruction of previous world powers
in this region.
But if this rock not cut by human hands is not Jesus of Nazareth, then
what/who is it? I believe the best interpretation is that it is the
Kingdom of God itself. Obviously, Jesus accomplished the decisive victory
by which the Kingdom was inaugurated with his crucifixion and
resurrection. However, even Jesus spoke of the presence of the Kingdom in
present terms before his resurrection. This is, undoubtedly, in many ways
related to the incarnation – that is, the Kingdom was present because Jesus
himself was present – but there is no particular reason why the beginnings of
the Kingdom – which is, after all, the rule of God in human affairs – could not
have earlier stirrings going back into the Macedonian period.
As discussed above, the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes eventually led to
the Maccabean revolt which did two things. First, it seems to have brought
divine judgment upon him, leading to his death “not by human hands” which, in
turn, dramatically undermined the power of what was left of the Macedonian
Empire. In this way, God’s actions broke the power of the 4th
kingdom and set in motion events which came to a head with the arrival of
Jesus. Second, the Maccabean revolt did something extremely important
with respect to Jesus’ ministry: it stirred up longings for the arrival
of God’s Messiah. With a taste of freedom but also the knowledge that they
would not be completely free until God moved, during the latter part of the
Macedonian occupation, the people of Israel began to long for the Messiah to an
unprecedented degree. The messianic fervor that we find in the 1st
century Jewish culture of Jesus’ day was directly related to the events which
occurred during the Macedonian occupation of Israel. I believe this is
what is meant by the prophetic details of the 4th kingdom in Dan. 2,
7 & 8: during this time, God would do something that would grow larger
and larger until eventually it destroyed to power of all other kings and
kingdoms. Obviously Jesus was the “one like the son of man” who
decisively declared the absolute power of this divine Kingdom and won its
critical victory, but he need not be taken as the initial “rock” thrown in the
pond of human affairs [sic].
No comments:
Post a Comment