Blood curse
The blood curse refers to a New Testament passage from the Gospel of Matthew, which describes events taking place in Pilate's court before the crucifixion of Jesus and the apparent willingness of the Jews to accept liability for Jesus' death. Matthew 27:24–25 reads: So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying "I am innocent of this man’s blood, and all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" This passage has no counterpart in the other Gospels and is related to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE. German Protestant theologian Ulrich Luz describes it as "redactional fiction" invented by the author of the Matthew Gospel; some writers, viewing it as part of Matthew's anti-Jewish polemic, see in it the seeds of Christian antisemitism. In the view of the late Graham Stanton, a British New Testament scholar in the Reformed tradition, "Matthew's anti-Jewish polemic should be seen as part of the self-definition of the Christian minority, acutely aware of the rejection and hostility of its'mother' Judaism."
Howard Clark Kee has written, "The bitter words he attributes to the Jews have caused endless harm in arrousing anti-Jewish emotions." N. T. Wright, an Anglican New Testament scholar and theologian, has stated, "The tragic and horrible use of Mt. 27.25 as an excuse for soi-disant'Christian' anti-semitism is a gross distortion of its original meaning, where the reference is to the fall of Jerusalem." Donald A. Hagner, a Presbyterian New Testament scholar and theologian, has written, "It cannot be denied that this statement has been used to promote anti-Semitism; the statement is formulaic, the reference to'our children' does not make them guilty of the death of Jesus, let alone children or Jews of generations." Anglican theologian Rowan Williams Archbishop of Wales, who would soon become Archbishop of Canterbury, has written of Matthew's Gospel being made "the tool of the most corrupt and murderous misreading of the passion stories that has disfigured the Church's record." "The evangelist's bitterness at the schism within God's people that continues in his own day, his impatience with the refusal of the Jewish majority to accept the preaching of Jesus, overflows into this symbolic self-denunciation by'the people'.
It is all too that his first readers heard it as a corporate acknowledgement of guilt by the Jewish nation, that they connected it, as do other New Testament writers, with the devastation of the nation and its sacred place in the terrible disasters of AD 70, when the Romans destroyed the Temple and along with it the last vestiges of independent power for the people. Read at this level, it can only make the contemporary Christian think of all the centuries in which Jewish guilt formed so significant a part of Christian self-understanding, of the nightmare, made possible by this in the twentieth century." Pope Benedict XVI writes of this incident: "When in Matthew's account the "whole people" say: "His blood be upon us and on our children", the Christian will remember that Jesus' blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel: it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment. It is not poured out against anyone. St. John Chrysostom wrote of this incident: "Observe here the infatuation of the Jews.
Yet a merciful God did not ratify this sentence, but accepted such of them and of their children as repented. Antisemitism and the New Testament Jewish deicide Sanhedrin trial of Jesus
Synoptic Gospels
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is distinct; the term synoptic comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις, synopsis, i.e. " seeing all together, synopsis". This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content and specific language is attributed to literary interdependence; the question of the precise nature of their literary relationship—the synoptic problem—has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time". The longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, further holds that Matthew and Luke drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q. Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed in Koine Greek, have a similar length, were completed within a century of Jesus' death.
They differ from non-canonical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in that they belong to the ancient genre of biography, collecting not only Jesus' teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins, his ministry and miracles, his passion and resurrection. In content and in wording, the synoptics diverge from John but have a great deal in common with each other. Though each gospel includes some unique material, the majority of Mark and half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence nearly verbatim; this common material is termed the triple tradition. The triple tradition, the material included by all three synoptic gospels, includes many stories and teachings: Furthermore, the triple tradition's pericopae tend to be arranged in much the same order in all three gospels; this stands in contrast to the material found in only two of the gospels, much more variable in order. The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradition is not always definitive, depending rather on the degree of similarity demanded.
For example and Mark report the cursing of the fig tree a single incident, despite some substantial differences of wording and content. Searching Luke, however, we find only the parable of the barren fig tree, in a different point of the narrative; some would say that Luke has extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition, while others would regard it as a distinct pericope. An illustrative example of the three texts in parallel is the healing of the leper: More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Just as interesting, though, is that each gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two, it has been observed that the triple tradition itself constitutes a complete gospel quite similar to the shortest gospel, Mark. Mark, unlike Luke, adds little to the triple tradition. Pericopae unique to Mark are scarce, notably two healings involving the naked runaway. Mark's additions within the triple tradition tend to be explanatory Aramaisms.
The pericopae Mark shares with only Luke are quite few: the Capernaum exorcism and departure from Capernaum, the strange exorcist, the widow's mites. A greater number, but still not many, are shared with only Matthew, most notably the so-called "Great Omission" from Luke of Mk 6:45–8:26. Most scholars take these observations as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship; the hypothesis favored by most experts is Marcan priority, that Mark was composed first and that Matthew and Luke each used Mark and incorporated most of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels. A leading alternative hypothesis is Marcan posteriority, that Mark was formed by extracting what Matthew and Luke shared in common. An extensive set of material—some two hundred verses or half the length of the triple tradition—are the pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark; this is termed the double tradition. Parables and other sayings predominate in the double tradition, but it includes narrative elements: Unlike triple-tradition material, double-tradition material is differently arranged in the two gospels.
Matthew's lengthy Sermon on the Mount, for example, is paralleled by Luke's shorter Sermon on the Plain, with the remainder of its content scattered throughout Luke. This is consistent with the general pattern of Matthew collecting sayings into large blocks, while Luke does the opposite and intersperses them with narrative. Besides the double-tradition proper and Luke agree against Mark within the triple tradition to varying extents, sometimes including several additional verses, sometimes differing by a single word; these are termed the minor agreements. One example is in the passion narrative, where Mark has "Prophesy!" while Matthew and Luke both add, "Who is it that struck you?"The double-tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the syn
Prefect
Prefect is a magisterial title of varying definition, but which refers to the leader of an administrative area. A prefect's office, department, or area of control is called a prefecture, but in various post-Roman empire cases there is a prefect without a prefecture or vice versa; the words "prefect" and "prefecture" are used, more or less conventionally, to render analogous words in other languages Romance languages. Praefectus with a further qualification, was the formal title of many low to high-ranking, military or civil officials in the Roman Empire, whose authority was not embodied in their person but conferred by delegation from a higher authority, they did have some authority in their prefecture such as controlling prisons and in civil administration. The Praetorian prefect began as the military commander of a general's guard company in the field grew in importance as the Praetorian Guard became a potential kingmaker during the Empire. From the Emperor Diocletian's tetrarchy they became the administrators of the four Praetorian prefectures, the government level above the dioceses and provinces.
Praefectus urbi, or praefectus urbanus: city prefect, in charge of the administration of Rome. Praefectus vigilum: commander of the Vigiles. Praefectus aerarii: nobles appointed guardians of the state treasury. Praefectus aerarii militaris: prefect of the military treasury. Praefectus annonae: official charged with the supervision of the grain supply to the city of Rome. Praefectus alae: commander of a cavalry unit. Praefectus castrorum: camp commandant. Praefectus cohortis: commander of a cohort. Praefectus classis: fleet commander. Praefectus equitatus: cavalry commander. Praefectus equitum: cavalry commander. Praefectus fabrum: officer in charge of fabri, i.e. well-trained engineers and artisans. Praefectus legionis: equestrian legionary commander. Praefectus legionis agens vice legati: equestrian acting legionary commander. Praefectus orae maritimae: official in charge with the control and defense of an important sector of sea coast. Praefectus socium: Roman officer appointed to a command function in an ala sociorum.
For some auxiliary troops, specific titles could refer to their peoples: Praefectus Laetorum Praefectus Sarmatarum gentilium Roman provinces were ruled by high-rank officials. Less important provinces though were entrusted to prefects, military men who would otherwise only govern parts of larger provinces; the most famous example is Pontius Pilate, who governed Judaea at a time when it was administered as an annex of Syria. As Egypt was a special imperial domain, a rich and strategic granary, where the Emperor enjoyed an pharaonic position unlike any other province or diocese, its head was styled uniquely Praefectus Augustalis, indicating that he governed in the personal name of the emperor, the "Augustus". Septimius Severus, after conquering Mesopotamia, introduced the same system there too. After the mid-1st century, as a result of the Pax Romana, the governorship was shifted from the military prefects to civilian fiscal officials called procurators, Egypt remaining the exception. Praefectus urbi: a prefect of the republican era who guarded the city during the annual sacrifice of the Latin: feriae latina on Mount Alban in which the consuls participated.
His former title was "custos urbi". In Medieval Latin, præfectus was used to refer to various officers—administrative, judicial, etc.—usually alongside a more precise term in the vernacular. The term is used by the Roman Catholic Church, which based much of its canon law terminology on Roman law, in several different ways; the Roman Curia has the nine Prefects of all the Congregations as well as the two of the Papal Household and of the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. The title attaches to the heads of some Pontifical Council, who are principally titled president, but in addition there is sometimes an additional ex officio position as a prefect. For example, the president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue is the prefect of the Commission for Religious Relations with Muslims. Traditionally these Curial officials are Cardinals, hence called "Cardinal-Prefect" or "Cardinal-President". There was a custom that those who were not cardinals when they were appointed were titled "Pro-Prefect" or "Pro-President".
These officials would be appointed prefect or president after their elevation to the Sacred College. However, since 1998, this custom has fallen into disuse. A Prefect Apostolic is a cleric in charge of an apostolic prefecture, a type of Roman Catholic territorial jurisdiction fulfilling the functions of a diocese in a missionary area or in a country, anti-religious, such as the People's Republic of China, but, not yet given the status of regular diocese, it is destined to become one in time. In the context of schools, a prefect is a pupil, given certain responsibilities in the school, similar to the responsibilities given to a hall monitor or safety patrol members. In some British and Commonwealth schools, prefects students in fifth to seventh yea
Passover
Passover called Pesach, is a major, biblically derived Jewish holiday. Jews celebrate Passover as a commemoration of their liberation by God from slavery in ancient Egypt and their freedom as a nation under the leadership of Moses, it commemorates the story of the Exodus as described in the Hebrew Bible in the Book of Exodus, in which the Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt. According to standard biblical chronology, this event would have taken place at about 1300 BCE. Passover is a spring festival which during the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem was connected to the offering of the "first-fruits of the barley", barley being the first grain to ripen and to be harvested in the Land of Israel. Passover commences on the 15th of the Hebrew month of Nisan and lasts for either seven days or eight days for Orthodox and most Conservative Jews. In Judaism, a day commences at dusk and lasts until the following dusk, thus the first day of Passover begins after dusk of the 14th of Nisan and ends at dusk of the 15th day of the month of Nisan.
The rituals unique to the Passover celebrations commence with the Passover Seder when the 15th of Nisan has begun. In the Northern Hemisphere Passover takes place in spring as the Torah prescribes it: "in the month of spring", it is one of the most celebrated Jewish holidays. In the narrative of the Exodus, the Bible tells that God helped the Children of Israel escape from their slavery in Egypt by inflicting ten plagues upon the ancient Egyptians before the Pharaoh would release his Israelite slaves; the Israelites were instructed to mark the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a slaughtered spring lamb and, upon seeing this, the spirit of the Lord knew to pass over the first-born in these homes, hence the English name of the holiday. When the Pharaoh freed the Israelites, it is said that they left in such a hurry that they could not wait for bread dough to rise. In commemoration, for the duration of Passover no leavened bread is eaten, for which reason Passover is called the feast of unleavened bread in the Torah.
Thus matzo is eaten during Passover and it is a tradition of the holiday. Together with Shavuot and Sukkot, Passover is one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals during which the entire population of the kingdom of Judah made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. Samaritans still make this pilgrimage to Mount Gerizim; the Passover begins on the 15th day of the month of Nisan, which falls in March or April of the Gregorian calendar. Passover is a spring festival, so the 15th day of Nisan begins on the night of a full moon after the northern vernal equinox. However, due to leap months falling after the vernal equinox, Passover sometimes starts on the second full moon after vernal equinox, as in 2016. To ensure that Passover did not start before spring, the tradition in ancient Israel held that the first day of Nisan would not start until the barley was ripe, being the test for the onset of spring. If the barley was not ripe, or various other phenomena indicated that spring was not yet imminent, an intercalary month would be added.
However, since at least the 4th century, the date has been fixed mathematically. In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days celebrated as legal holidays and as holy days involving holiday meals, special prayer services, abstention from work. Diaspora Jews celebrated the festival for eight days. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and Israeli Jews, wherever they are celebrate the holiday over seven days; the reason for this extra day is due to enactment of the ancient Jewish sages. It is thought by many scholars that Jews outside of Israel could not be certain if their local calendars conformed to practice of the Temple at Jerusalem, so they added an extra day, but as this practice attaches only to certain sacred days, others posit the extra day may have been added to accommodate people who had to travel long distances to participate in communal worship and ritual practices. Karaites and Samaritans use different versions of the Jewish calendar, which are out of sync with the modern Jewish calendar by one or two days.
In 2009, for example, Nisan 15 on the Jewish calendar used by Rabbinic Judaism corresponds to April 9. On the calendars used by Karaites and Samaritans, Abib or Aviv 15 corresponds to April 11 in 2009; the Karaite and Samaritan Passovers are each one day long, followed by the six-day Festival of Unleavened Bread – for a total of seven days. The origins of the Passover festival antedate the Exodus; the Passover ritual, prior to Deuteronomy, is thought to have its origins in an apotropaic rite, unrelated to the Exodus, to ensure the protection of a family home, a rite conducted wholly within a clan. Hyssop was employed to daub the blood of a slaughtered sheep on the lintels and door posts to ensure that demonic forces could not enter the home. A further hypothesis maintains that, once the Priestly Code was promulgated, the exodus narrative took on a central fu
Gospel of John
The Gospel of John is the fourth of the canonical gospels. The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, it is related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author. The discourses contained in this gospel seem to be concerned with issues of the church–synagogue debate at the time of composition, it is notable that in John, the community appears to define itself in contrast to Judaism, rather than as part of a wider Christian community. Though Christianity started as a movement within Judaism, it separated from Judaism because of mutual opposition between the two religions; the Gospel of John, the three Johannine epistles, the Book of Revelation, exhibit marked similarities, although more so between the gospel and the epistles than between those and Revelation. Most scholars therefore treat the five as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Gospel of John was written in the genre of Greco-Roman biography. John contains many characteristics of those writings belonging to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, a) internally; the gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110. It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say that he is its author. Christian tradition identified this disciple as the apostle John, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously; the scholarly consensus in the second half of the 20th century was that John was independent of the synoptic gospels, but this agreement broke down in the last decade of the century and there are now many who believe that John did know some version of Mark and Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order.
Key terms from the synoptics, are absent or nearly so, implying that if the author did know those gospels he felt free to write independently. Many incidents in John, such as the wedding in Cana and the encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, are not paralleled in the synoptics, most scholars believe he drew these from an independent source called the "signs gospel", the speeches of Jesus from a second "discourse" source. Most scholars agree; the gospel makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures. John quotes from them directly, references important figures from them, uses narratives from them as the basis for several of the discourses, but the author was familiar with non-Jewish sources: the Logos of the prologue derives from both the Jewish concept of Lady Wisdom and from the Greek philosophers, while John 6 alludes not only to the exodus but to Greco-Roman mystery cults, while John 4 alludes to Samaritan messianic beliefs. The majority of scholars see four sections in this gospel: a prologue.
The prologue informs readers of the true identity of Jesus: he is the Word of God through whom the world was created and who took on human form. John 1:10-12 outlines the story to follow: Jesus came to the Jews and the Jews rejected him, but "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." Jesus is baptised, calls his disciples, begins his earthly ministry. He travels from place to place informing his hearers about God the Father, offering eternal life to all who will believe, performing miracles which are signs of the authenticity of his teachings; this creates tensions with the religious authorities. Jesus prepares the disciples for their coming lives without his physical presence, prays for them and for himself; the scene is thus prepared for the narrative of his passion and resurrection. The section ends with a conclusion on the purpose of the gospel: "that may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that believing you may have life in his name."
Chapter 21 tells of Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to his disciples in Galilee, the miraculous catch of fish, the prophecy of the crucifixion of Peter, the restoration of Peter, the fate of the Beloved Disciple. The structure is schematic: there are seven "signs" culminating in the raising of Lazarus (foreshadowing t
Josephus on Jesus
The extant manuscripts of the writings of the first-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher, crucified by Pilate called the Testimonium Flavianum; the general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it consisted of an authentic nucleus, subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration. Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, broad consensus exists as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like. Modern scholarship has acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.
All modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation. The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence. A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts. Scholars view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them. In the Antiquities of the Jews Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest; the James referred to in this passage is most the James to whom the Epistle of James has been attributed.
The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts. The context of the passage is the period following the death of Porcius Festus, the journey to Alexandria by Lucceius Albinus, the new Roman Procurator of Judea, who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD; because Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no than the summer of 62 AD, the date of James' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year. The 2nd century chronicler Hegesippus left an account of the death of James, while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements. Modern scholarship has universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose name was James" and has rejected its being the result of Christian interpolation.
Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more reliable. However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it. In the Antiquities of the Jews Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea; the context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with Aretas IV of Nabatea, which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John. All modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety, although a small number of authors have questioned it; because the death of John appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the ministry of Jesus.
A few scholars have questioned the passage, contending that the absence of Christian tampering or interpolation does not itself prove authenticity. While this passage is the only reference to John the Baptist outside the New Testament, it is seen by most scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed. According to Marsh, any contrast between Josephus and the Gospel's accounts of John would be because the former lacked interest in the messianic element of John's mission. While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive; the gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias in defiance of Jewish law. Danielou contends that Josephus missed the religious meaning while recording only the political aspect of the conflict between Herod and John, which led to the latter's death. While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as Machaerus, southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned.
According to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 BC and passed
Rebellion
Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order. It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority; the term comes from the Latin verb rebellō, "I renew war" (from re- + bellō. The rebel is the individual that partakes in rebellion or rebellious activities when armed. Thus, the term rebellion refers to the ensemble of rebels in a state of revolt. A rebellion originates from a sentiment of indignation and disapproval of a situation and manifests itself by the refusal to submit or to obey the authority responsible for this situation. Rebellion can be individual or collective, peaceful or violent In political terms and revolt are distinguished by their different aims. If rebellion seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws; the goal of rebellion is resistance. As power shifts relative to the external adversary, or power shifts within a mixed coalition, or positions harden or soften on either side, an insurrection may seesaw between the two forms.
The following theories broadly build on the Marxist interpretation of rebellion. They explore the causes of rebellion from a wide lens perspective. Rebellion is studied, in Theda Skocpol's words, by analyzing "objective relationships and conflicts among variously situated groups and nations, rather than the interests, outlooks, or ideologies of particular actors in revolutions". Karl Marx's analysis of revolutions sees such expression of political violence not as anomic, episodic outbursts of discontents but rather the symptomatic expression of a particular set of objective but fundamentally contradicting class-based relations of power. Indeed, the central tenet of Marxist philosophy, as expressed in Capital, is the analysis of society's mode of production concomitant with the ownership of productive institutions and the division of profit. Marx writes about "the hidden structure of society" that must be elucidated through an examination of "the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers".
The mismatch, between one mode of production, between the social forces and the social ownership of the production, is at the origin of the revolution. The inner imbalance within these modes of production is derived from the conflicting modes of organization, such as capitalism within feudalism, or more appropriately socialism within capitalism; the dynamics engineered by these class frictions help class consciousness root itself in the collective imaginary. For example, the development of the bourgeoisie class went from oppressed merchant class to urban independence gaining enough power to represent the state as a whole. Social movements, are determined by an exogenous set of circumstances; the proletariat must according to Marx, go through the same process of self-determination which can only be achieved by friction against the bourgeoisie. In Marx's theory revolutions are the "locomotives of history", it is because rebellion has for ultimate goal to overthrow the ruling class and its antiquated mode of production.
Rebellion attempts to replace it with a new system of political economy, one, better suited to the new ruling class, thus enabling societal progress. The cycle of rebellion, replaces one mode of production by another through the constant class friction. In his book Why Men Rebel, Ted Gurr looks at the roots of political violence itself applied to a rebellion framework, he defines political violence as: "all collective attacks within a political community against the political regime, its actors or its policies. The concept represents a set of events, a common property of, the actual or threatened use of violence". Gurr sees in violence a voice of anger. More individuals become angry when they feel what Gurr labels as relative deprivation, meaning the feeling of getting less than one is entitled to, he labels it formally as the "perceived discrepancy between value expectations and value capabilities". Gurr differentiates between three types of relative deprivation: Decremental deprivation: one's capacities' decrease when expectations remain high.
One example of this is the proliferation and thus depreciation of the value of higher education. Aspirational Deprivation: one's capacities stay the same when expectations rise. An example would be a first generation college student lacking the contacts and network to obtain a higher paying job while watching her better-prepared colleagues bypass her. Progressive deprivation: expectation and capabilities increase but the former cannot keep up. A good example would be an automotive worker being marginalized by the automatisation of the assembly line. Anger is thus comparative. One of his key insight is that "The potential for collective violence varies with the intensity and scope of relative deprivation among members of a collectivity"; this means that different individuals within society will have different propensities to rebel based on their particular internalization of their situation. As such, Gurr differentiates between three types of political violence: Turmoil when only the mass population encounters relative deprivation.
In this case, the degree of organization is much higher than turmoil, the revolution is intrinsically spread to all sections of society, unlike the conspi
.jpg)
