A Jewish consul

[Kosmo]

3. 116 and 132/3 seems too far for him to be the same one

4. We must (?) conjecture that the 116 was another one so we must (?) put him in another Herodian line

 

Not too long. Often it took a lot of time for a consul to became a proconsul. But as the proconsulate of Asia was the high point of a senatorial career (together with Africa) it was not given to someone as the first province. He might have been proconsul somewhere else before 132.

I find the dates more interesting because in both 116 and 132/3 there were large Jewish rebellions under way.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

3. 116 and 132/3 seems too far for him to be the same one

4. We must (?) conjecture that the 116 was another one so we must (?) put him in another Herodian line

 

Not too long. Often it took a lot of time for a consul to became a proconsul. But as the proconsulate of Asia was the high point of a senatorial career (together with Africa) it was not given to someone as the first province. He might have been proconsul somewhere else before 132.

I find the dates more interesting because in both 116 and 132/3 there were large Jewish rebellions under way.

 

 

 

Agreed .

 

Yes, as I have said, the coincidence for a consul of Jewish origin in 116 is amazing because of the Jewish revolt of the years 115-117 . Now You came with another one - A proconsulate in 132/3 - exacetly at the begining of the Bar Cochba revolt . Who knows what were the motives of Traianus and Hadrianus . A puzzle !

[Ingsoc]

3. 116 and 132/3 seems too far for him to be the same one

4. We must (?) conjecture that the 116 was another one so we must (?) put him in another Herodian line

 

Not too long. Often it took a lot of time for a consul to became a proconsul. But as the proconsulate of Asia was the high point of a senatorial career (together with Africa) it was not given to someone as the first province. He might have been proconsul somewhere else before 132.

I find the dates more interesting because in both 116 and 132/3 there were large Jewish rebellions under way.

 

 

 

Agreed .

 

Yes, as I have said, the coincidence for a consul of Jewish origin in 116 is amazing because of the Jewish revolt of the years 115-117 . Now You came with another one - A proconsulate in 132/3 - exacetly at the begining of the Bar Cochba revolt . Who knows what were the motives of Traianus and Hadrianus . A puzzle !

 

You assuming that the emperors saw Berenicianus as Jewish or something similar but I seriously doubt it.

[ASCLEPIADES]

3. 116 and 132/3 seems too far for him to be the same one

4. We must (?) conjecture that the 116 was another one so we must (?) put him in another Herodian line

 

Not too long. Often it took a lot of time for a consul to became a proconsul. But as the proconsulate of Asia was the high point of a senatorial career (together with Africa) it was not given to someone as the first province. He might have been proconsul somewhere else before 132.

I find the dates more interesting because in both 116 and 132/3 there were large Jewish rebellions under way.

 

 

 

Agreed .

 

Yes, as I have said, the coincidence for a consul of Jewish origin in 116 is amazing because of the Jewish revolt of the years 115-117 . Now You came with another one - A proconsulate in 132/3 - exacetly at the begining of the Bar Cochba revolt . Who knows what were the motives of Traianus and Hadrianus . A puzzle !

 

You assuming that the emperors saw Berenicianus as Jewish or something similar but I seriously doubt it.

Obviously no; any Roman would have seen him for what he was; a rich Roman citizen from a consular rank family. Period.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Obviously no; any Roman would have seen him for what he was; a rich Roman citizen from a consular rank family. Period.

 

 

 

For the third or forth or 11 times - The consul of 116 was of Jewish origin, that is his genealogy no matter what .

If you have a source that says otherwise - Pleace name him .

 

Let us listen to scohlars like Ilan and another one to conclude

"The decendants of Alexander, son of Herod and Marriamme, and Glaphyra, daugther of Archelaus of Cappadocia . Those alive around 80 include :

1. Julius Alexander, son of Tigranes of Armenia Major (a grandson of Alexander and Glaphyra)... in 72 (he became) king of Cetis...If OGIS 544 is to belived, Alexander later entered the senate, probably under Trajan, reached the suffect consulship (so now we have a grandson of a Jew who became consul) . "Alexander had two sons :

1. Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus (a foot note - ...Halfmann...thinks he was perhaps a descendant of Berenice and Marcus Julius Alexander...), who was suffect consul in 116 and proconsul of Asia in 132/3...

 

So far for his genealogy . The father was a grandson of a Jew or the son (cos. suff. 116) "perhaps" a Jew

Now for their religion, I must say that I thougt that the 116 was just another helenic prince but now -

"This family had apperently let its ties to Judaism lapse but the names Alexander gave his sons indicate that his family connections were not wholly broken . Some vestigial connections with Judaism cannot therefore be ruled out..."

(Josephus and Judaean Politics By Seth Schwartz) .

 

With regards to such things I tend to think with open mind .

 

Edit : Period .

Edited December 3, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Caesar CXXXVII]

From the sources mentioned above there were two consuls with Jewish origin - cos. suff. 116 and his father Gaius Iulius Alexander (the grandson of the Jewish prince Alexander, before 109) .

 

Another source mentioned a third - "Tiberius Julius Alexander Julianus, a son or a grandson of the Alexandrian apostate Tiberius Julius Alexander, consul in 117 (?)" . (The Jews Under Roman Rule By E. Mary Smallwood) .

 

Smallwood named the above as having "partly Jewish ancestry" . Fine with me .

[P.Clodius]

I thought Judaism was a religion not a race. Does this mean I'm of Christian ancestry?

[Nephele]

I thought Judaism was a religion not a race. Does this mean I'm of Christian ancestry?

 

Judaism isn't a race because not all Jews share the same genetic makeup (you can have fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed Jews as well as dark-complexioned Jews). But all Jews are nevertheless united as a sort of extended family with a shared history, regardless of whether or not they happen to be religiously observant Jews. There are Jews who also happen to be atheists.

 

-- Nephele

[Kosmo]

I thought Judaism was a religion not a race. Does this mean I'm of Christian ancestry?

 

Judaism isn't a race because not all Jews share the same genetic makeup (you can have fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed Jews as well as dark-complexioned Jews). But all Jews are nevertheless united as a sort of extended family with a shared history, regardless of whether or not they happen to be religiously observant Jews. There are Jews who also happen to be atheists.

 

-- Nephele

 

Israelis are amazingly diverse from a "racial" point of view, but still Judaism it's (or was) a religion based on ancestry.

Obviously this man had the status to became consul, but it will be interesting to know if romans would have made consul somebody who was not a pagan given the religious attributes of consulship.

[Nephele]

Although this is going a bit off-topic, I nevertheless feel a need to clarify something here.

 

Presumably the main current hard legal consequence of being defined as a Jew is the Israel's Law of Return from 1950, which grants automatic citizenship and benefits to any Jewish immigrant.

 

- by birth; any child born to a Jewish mother (regardeless of their current religious status);

 

Israel's Law of Return does not automatically grant citizenship to those, born of a Jewish mother, who have also chosen to convert to another religion.

 

-- Nephele