Ben, you need to understand the story of Antoninus Pius and how he became known as Pius. You have missed that.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:26 amBut is that not exactly what Caligula had proposed to do nearly a century earlier, according to Philo and Josephus? Philo, citing a fellow countryman: "Our temple is destroyed! Gaius has ordered a colossal statue of himself to be erected in the holy of holies, having his own name inscribed upon it with the title of Jupiter!"Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:15 amHadrian could not possibly have placed his own statue in front of any temple, or in any temple complex. It would have been a faux pax similar to a pope sanctifying himself, and ordering he be revered among the great saints and a statue erected in Cathedral in his own honor.
Same thing, it was not granted in Hadrian's case until many years perhaps a decade after Hadrian's death. Antoninus Pius was given the title Pius specifically (well one of the four reasons) Filial piety for his adoptive father (he founded sodales Hadrianales) for his efforts to get a very reluctant Senate to give the Deity honors to Hadrian - Hadrian was hated , as he had executed some Senators (when he came to power). Antoninus erected statues and tributes throughout the empire in his honor. There is epigraphical evidence whatsoever for any statues erected of Hadrian prior to his death.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:30 pmI have seen commentary that someone around this time was deified ante-mortem, and I think it was either Trajan or Hadrian (and I think it was Hadrian). I think it was done by the Senate, not by the emperor themselves.Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:15 amBTW, you notice that Hadrian himself is not referred to as deified yet on the coin, but rather Trajan and Nerva his predecessors are. Such deification was confirmed on Emperors postmortem by the Senate, and even an Emperors lacked the power to bestow such an honor. Hadrian could not possibly have placed his own statue in front of any temple, or in any temple complex. It would have been a faux pax similar to a pope sanctifying himself, and ordering he be revered among the great saints and a statue erected in Cathedral in his own honor.
As for the economic reasons, all one has to do is look at the Bar Kokhba coin distribution, which is restricted to hills of Judea south of the old Jerusalem. Why? Simple every road, every improvement was north of this country. They benefited nothing from the taxes they had to bear. The Samaritans on the other hand were both under foot of Romans building and allied with them. The revolt itself was centered around the seizing of estates and their taxation by Simon (per his letters). The coins show that as the revolt was slowly fading the leadership switched to a more religious tone to try and rally.
This is not to say Jews did not have nationalist religious identity, just that was not the cause for the revolt. And the revolt is not unique among Roman provinces. Areas that benefited least but paid taxes were most likely to revolt. It was only later that Christians and Jews, for their own purposes (I think Christians first) applied a religious overtone to the revolt. But it was certainly not different than revolts in Germany and Britain or the Balkans. And those also had religious overtones - but offensive "pagan" tones to Christian and Jewish ears.