maryhelena wrote:Rather than putting negativity on Jewish leaders - I'm now in the habit of reading Herodian Jews when Jews get a bad rap in the gospel story. A Herodian Jew would easily voice such a sentiment - "we have no King but Caesar". After all, it was Rome that appointed Herod as King in 40 b.c.e. After Herod's death no son of his held the title of King - Herodian Jews falling back on Caesar as their King. No Herodian Jew is going to give a Jewish messiah figure the time of day......
MH-
I believe you are correct here. There are those who argue that Herod was "Procurator of the Syrians" but consider the Key Scene at the meeting of the Jewish Leaders with Caesar:
Antiquities..., 17, 11, 2 and 4:
"Now upon the liberty that was given to the Jewish ambassadors to speak, they who hoped to obtain a dissolution of kingly government betook themselves to accuse Herod of his iniquities; and they declared that he was indeed in name a king, but that he had taken to himself that uncontrollable authority which tyrants exercise over their subjects...
...
"that it was for this reason that they thought they might justly and gladly salute Archelaus as king, upon this supposition, that whosoever should be set over their kingdom, he would appear more mild to them than Herod had been...since the power of disposing of it belonged to Caesar, who could either give it to him or not, as he pleased...
...
"When Caesar had heard these pleadings, he dissolved the assembly; but a few days afterwards he appointed Archelaus, not indeed to be king of the whole country, but ethnarch of the one half of that which had been subject to Herod...
Our ol' friend Nicholas of Damascus stands up and states that Herod was in his proper senses:
Wars..., 2, 2, 6:
"Then stood up Nicolaus to plead for Archelaus. He alleged that the slaughter in the temple could not be avoided; that those that were slain were become enemies not to Archelaus's kingdom, only, but to Caesar, who was to determine about him. He also demonstrated that Archelaus's accusers had advised him to perpetrate other things of which he might have been accused. But he insisted that the latter testament should, for this reason, above all others, be esteemed valid, because Herod had therein appointed Caesar to be the person who should confirm the succession; for he who showed such prudence as to recede from his own power, and yield it up to the lord of the world, cannot be supposed mistaken in his judgment about him that was to be his heir; and he that so well knew whom to choose for arbitrator of the succession could not be unacquainted with him whom he chose for his successor..."
This leads to Jay's excellent points:
PhilosopherJay wrote:It appears the mistake that Caesar made was not denying the role of king. The Romans had hated kings since disposing of their last king Tarquin in 509. Instead of saying, I am not your king, as he should have done, he said, "I am not King, but Caesar." This made it appear that he was not denying his kingship, but only wishing to be called Caesar, instead of King. We should remember that Caesar was not a title until the time of Augustus.
Perhaps,"Hey, I'm not the King of Baseball...I'm Babe Ruth". Or, as the Physicist Richard Feynman said, "I'm no Dirac..." Clearly someone is telling this tale of JC for effect. Someone in Rome and for Rome. Screw the Provinces.
The Jewish leaders saying "We have no King, but Caesar" would bring to mind the arrogance and ignorance of Julius Caesar in declaring the name "Caesar" equivalent to "King"
Perhaps it was meant to indicate the stupidity of the Jewish leaders in not denying Jesus as king, but accidentally calling him Caesar instead. Without a firm date for the writing of the text, a precise meaning of the line is difficult to know.
I believe that there is historical information being passed on here. The Title "King" is given to the Ruler of the Jews - Herod - by use if not by authorization. We could argue that one would or would not have been thrown in the dungeon if one did not scream, "Long Live King Herod!" at the appropriate moment as he passed by but clearly this changes at his death. Herod leaves the decision of succession to the Lord of the World and the intent is VERY clear. This Historicism means that after the death of Herod, to the Romans and the functioning bureaucracy in Judea, "There is no King but Caesar".
As the years go by, however, and the succession of Caesars begins, "The Lord of the World" changes meanings. "OF COURSE there is no King but Caesar! How could it be possible to think otherwise?" The reduction of the Kingdom of Judea (and Greater Israel!) ends in the absorption into the Empire. This implies, Jay, that although your request for a "firm date" for this may not be had, there is a range and, at the earliest, 4 BCE would be it. I believe that it is very natural for the date to be 8/9 CE for reasons outlined many times earlier but whatever time is appropriate, it cannot be much later than 10 - 20 CE.
That also implies that Maryhelena's demands to look to the Hasmoneans is very good advice. THEY could have provided Kingship and High Priests (See Revelation 5: 10). They are a challenge to the Romans and must be crushed.
'N that means that the Time Line for a Meaning in the NT for "We have no King but Caesar" is limited to just a few years.
CW