A Consideration of Rulers and their Direct and Indirect Impact on Palestine

A subject to consider for our studies of Palestine

In the Jewish tradition Rome has gotten a bad reputation, being remembered for the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE and the crushing of several Jewish rebellions, particularly the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132-135 CE. Particularly the latter case has been the cause of the popular conception of the Romans trying to erase the name of Judea, for instead to replace it with a name which should, as we are told, refer to the most ardent enemies of the Jews, the Philistines. The name given by the Romans are, of course, Palestine.

The discussion about the name Palestine has already been had in another article, so we won’t delve into that here. We will be talking a little more about the Romans, since – whether we like it or not – they have been a crucial part of the development of Palestine, from the first time they took part in the destiny of the lands in the early 1st century BCE until the Muslim conquest in the early 7th century CE. Rome was a defining power in Palestine for 800 years, and not only for the Jews, but for all the people living there. This can for example be seen by the annexation of the Nabataeans in 106 CE, which eventually would turn them from their native Arab pagan religion to Byzantine Christianity, a thing which might be particularly illustrated by the desert city of Negev, Obada, with the remnants of two Nabataean temples laying side to side with the remnants of two Byzantine churches.

Some Roman emperors were more influential than others, but one of the more crucial emperors must be Constantine I, or the Great as he also became known, who effectively made Christianity the religion of the state and that way turned Palestine from a peripheral administrational area to “the Holy Land”, effectively ensuring the economic and demographic boom through the next centuries.

This to illustrate that rulers had impact on Palestine, obviously not only Roman rulers but all rulers, whether they lived in or outside of Palestine. The question is whether any particular focus should be given to these rulers, besides the buildings built, the edicts made, or indirect decisions decided which would have effect on the lives of the people living in Palestine. Should we study these rulers in more detail, for example to understand their motivations, their aspirations, their likes and dislikes to better understand how their rule impacted Palestine, or is it merely enough to know that they took decisions which did affect Palestine, motivations being irrelevant?

In my studies of beforementioned Constantine one author made me think more about this. In a chapter of The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, titled The Impact of Constantine on Christianity, H. A. Drake argues for Constantine being a devote believer in Christ, embracing the faith out of pure motivations rather than as a political consideration trying to win the support of a growing and very devoted community of Christian believers. This devotion of Constantine in turns helps him to argue for unity rather than purity of the community, and in turn the empire, trying to calm more extremist tempers (his own included), encouraging difference of opinions. Not that Constantine didn’t act and react to schisms in the church, but as Drake argues, this was not because of differing opinions as much as a refusal to prioritize unity over disagreements.

In this Drake expresses a sentiment I found interesting: “Orthodoxy did not necessarily require the suppression of paganism, but it did require the suppression of heresy, the wrongful teaching that jeopardized every Christian’s prospect for immortal life.” Constantine did call for the gathering of the church to solve two controversies, the Donatist and the Arian controversies, but not with violence. And, according to Drake, he didn’t believe in the forceful conversion of people.

Yet, as he remarks, “But the hotheads were there. We can see them peeping around the edges of Constantine’s criticisms in the Oration to the Assembly of the Saints, and clearly they are the ones in control by the end of the century, when famous temples were falling to the blows of Christian axes.” This, however, didn’t happen during Constantine’s rule and I wonder how crucial his influence and insistence of unity, both within the church but also more broadly within the empire, caused the most extremist tempers from becoming the norm.

This is what I have in mind when I ponder whether we should spend more time to understand the individual rulers, even if they’re not directly engaged in Palestine (which Constantine was, he did after all order the construction of momentous constructions such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). Even when their influence isn’t obvious it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, or that we shouldn’t consider the attitude and motivations of the respective ruler on the day-to-day affairs of Palestine.

This leads me to think that we should involve the respective rulers of the empires in control, even if they don’t seem to be directly related to the idea of a history of Palestine, beyond merely talking about decisions they took which directly affected the lands or people of Palestine. Even to the point when studying a ruler without considerations of how he or she related themselves to Palestine. Many didn’t think much of the place, but their general attitudes to other subjects would make a difference, for example their attitude to the official religion and its relation to non-believing minorities.

So, to make a long story short (or is it the other way around?), with this in mind I think it is prudent for us to also including short (at least) biographies about the various rulers and their general outlook, to understand the attitude of the ruling body and how that could have affected the lives of the people of Palestine.

A recommendation of the book I was referring to:

The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, edited by Noel Lenski