starman

There was probably some brief recording of this, and possibly a brief report sent to Syria or even Rome, but nothing has survived. Sure, jesus seemed like a minor troublemaker at the time. Still, it was not like a routine crucifixion of some murderer. Jesus was making speeches and allegedly called himself king of the jews, hinting at a possible revolt. Ergo, a report from Pilatvs may have said: "We just executed someone calling himself rex judanorum, but there were no major problems in Jerusalem this passover. I'll be returning to Caesarea shortly."

Sure, but what got him into real trouble was the claim, which he didn't deny, that he was "the king of the jews."

According to Ehrman, who seems to speak for scholars generally, John's gospel is the least reliable historically. None of the synoptics mention this.

Sure I have it, in history and two other fields. Someone else also has that username; don't remember, offhand, if he is also TC.

Haven't seen you there lately. I'm TimD on that site.

Of course 235 or 238 CE makes the best sense. Even romanization, notably in Britain and Dacia, continued up to then. Unfortunately, the voters in "yahoo answers" chose the answer which said 180, supposedly based on what two Italian experts say. I just can't see real experts choosing that year.

True, fighting of one kind or other was frequent. Still, with the exception of Marcus Aurelius's reign, and the civil wars of 68-69 and 193-97, and the Jewish uprisings at the end of Trajan's reign (which unlike the revolts of 66-74 and 132-135 affected a wide geographical area), the Empire was quite stable. In other words there were only about seven serious internal disturbances in 200 years, and most were quite localized. Compare that with europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. What strikes me as odd is the choice of 180 for the "end" of the pax Romana, when the fifty odd years after that were generally much more stable. There was for example, no serious fighting at all in Commodus's reign.

Is that what he said? IMO reasonable dates would be 166 or 170, when the troubles of Marcus's reign intensified, or 193, when the civil wars began; best of all would be 235 or 238. I don't think the death of Severus 211 CE is very good since Alexander Severus's reign was mostly OK, except the last few years.

I saw on wiki that the Pax Romana is considered to have ended in 180 CE. That's a bit odd, IMO, and contrary to what an old history text said. The end of the period of the Good emperors shouldn't be confused with the end of the pax Romana. Ironically, the reign of Commodus, after 180, was far more stable than that of Marcus Aurelius. I incline toward the view, expressed in a former schoolbook, that the pax Romana ended with the death of Alexander Severus, inasmuch as civil wars and internal insecurity were the exceptions prior to 235-284, and commonplace during that period, and subsequently.

The Romans evidently covered up a number of setbacks during this period, such as the defeat at Barbalissos in 252. Has anyone else seen the brief booklet The Catastrophic Era Rome versus Persia in the Third Century? How accurate are the reconstructions of the big battles of this period? Or, how accurate are they likely to be, given what is known about Roman and Persian tactics? Also, is the booklet's views about the fate of Gordian III and Valerian really supported by recent scholarship?

What was the true fate of Gordian III and Valerian? What really happened at Misiche, Barbalissos and Edessa? A booklet has just been published which addresses these issues at greater length than any other work I've seen. It is entitled The Catastrophic Era: Rome versus Persia in the Third Century. It is the only work I know which attempts to reconstruct the big-but almost unknown-battles of the mid third century in the East. I'd like to discuss this booklet with others. I saw it at http://www.publishamerica.com (hit online bookstore and search for The Catastrophic Era). It may also be available soon from amazon.com or barnes and noble. What I'd like to know is: are the booklet's conclusions really consistent with modern scholarship? And are the reconstructions of the big battles plausible?