Note the similarity of the sound: Herodiani, Hadrianiani .
Peter Schäfer has proposed that many inhabitants of Judea may have supported the Hadrian's policies int he region, with some Judeans helping to suppress the revolt once it erupted.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/wp-conte ... adrian.pdf
The hypothesis has plausibility for the only reason that it was surely not useful to mention too much names.
I have in addition a clue to think so.
In Mark 12:13, the “Herodians” are who is testing the Jesus's tribute to emperor. This is expected by people who served directly the Emperor (Hadrian) more than a mere vassall of the emperor (Herod).
In Mark 3:6
why would the “Herodians” (really: the Hadrianians) have had a reaction against Jesus in virtue of the miracle of the hand?
Only, see the episode:
The episode remembers another hand, of a Roman:
In the case of Mucius Scaevola, the stretching of the hand was to destroy it, as sign of loyalty to Rome. While in Jesus the stretching of the hand was to heal it, as sign of the Jesus supremacy.
I am not arguing that Mark had in mind just the episode of Mucius Scaevola. I am pointing out that raising his right hand signified a promise or sacrifice, during a civil-religious rite, to pay homage to the Emperor, the State, the authority, etc.
Since the man was stretching the hand under command of Jesus, then that act could be meant as an act of homage to Jesus himself, as in contrast against the only earthly alternative candidate for a homage of the kind: the Roman emperor.
Hence the hostility of the Herodians, aka Hadranians.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1