MIRIAM PUCCI BEN ZEEV
Jewish Rights in the Roman World
Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 74
Mohr Siebeck
Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Texte und Studien zum A n t i k e n Judentum Edited by Martin H e n g e l und Peter Schafer
74
ART! BUS
Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev
Jewish Rights in the Roman World The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius
Mohr Siebeck
Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, born 1948; 1978 Ph. D. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; presently Senior Lecturer of Jewish History, Second Temple Period, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel.
Die Deutsche
Bibliothek
Pucci Ben-Ze'ev,
-
CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Miry dm:
Jewish rights in the Roman world : the Greek and Roman documents quoted by Josephus Flavius / Miriam Pucci B e n Zeev. - Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998 (Texts and studies in ancient Judaism ; 74) ISBN 3-16-147043-5
© 1998 by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P. O. Box 2040,72010 Tubingen. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper from Papierfabrik Niefern and bound by Heinr. Koch in Tubingen. ISSN 0721-8753
To the memory
of my
father
Preface It is a pleasure to acknowledge my gratitude to the scholars and friends who have helped me throughout these years of work. Prof. David Asheri cannot be thanked enough, not only for this advice, and not only for his suggestions and sound criticism, but for the many kinds of assistance which he has given to me since I arrived in Israel in 1972. The conversations we have had together during these twenty-five years have been most important to me, always yielding more ideas, always encouraging me to do more and better work. My gratitude to him is immense. Prof. Martin Goodman and Prof. Daniela Piattelli helped me find new answers to the problem of the sources used by Josephus. A further stage toward a possible solution was reached during a most interesting and stimulating conversation with Prof. Tessa Rajak and Prof. Joseph Modrzejewski, and I wish to thank both of them deeply for their assistance in finding new answers to old questions. I owe much also to the constructive criticism of Prof. Mordechai Rabello and of Prof. Joseph Mordrzejewski. Prof. Rabello helped me to find clearer formulations of the problems related to the imperial cult, and Prof. Modrezejewski discussed with me central themes concerning the legal status of the Greek cities vis-a-vis that of the the gentes living in the Roman world. For the chapter on the meaning of the Jewish rights in practice, the credit is his to a great extent. I wish to thank Prof. Aharon Oppenheimer for his prodigious assistance and his wise counsel. Prof. Daniel R. Schwartz has given me much good advice all along the way. Prof. Fergus Millar drew my attention to important new texts which constitute important parallels to the documents quoted by Josephus and was kind enough to send them to me. He also put me in contact with Prof. Peter Rhodes, who allowed me access to sections of his work, then in preparation, on the decrees issued by Greek cities. Prof. Martin Goodman has helped with valuable comments on the date of the document concerning Delian Jews. Prof. Zeev Rubin provided me with useful information about Roman official titles and calendar questions, and Dr. Israel Ben Shalom and Dr. Ephrat Habas shared with me their valuable experience concerning controversial interpretations of later Jewish sources. Prof. Mireille Hadas-Lebel has helped me find rare journals in the splendid libraries of Paris, and Prof. Hannah Cotton has suggested a possible new translation to a passage of Augustus' edict sent to Asian Jews. My thanks are also due to Prof. Pieter van der Horst, who has been so kind as to let me read his work on Sabbath
VIII
Preface
worship in the synagogue before publication, and to Prof. Ranon Katzoff and to Prof. Israel Shatzmann for having lent me their personal copies of books otherwise not available to me. Thanks also to Prof. Renato Oniga and to Prof. Fabio Vendruscolo of the University of Udine who have supplied useful references on the problem of the corruptions appearing in inscriptions and papyri, essential for understanding the meaning of those appearing in the documents quoted by Josephus. I am greatly indebted to Mrs. Colette Muscat, Mrs. Elisheva German, Mrs. Marcelle Hermeche, Mrs. Suzie Ganot and Mrs. Perlina Varon for their readiness to provide assistance of many kinds, and to Mrs. Fay Lifshitz, a dear friend who always stood ready to assist with English editing during the early stages of my work. Thanks go as well to Mr. Peretz Rodman, English copyeditor, for displaying extraordinary professional competence and ability, as well as insights that assisted in improving the arguments presented, accomplished with patience and good humor, and to Mrs. Judith Sternberg who has transformed the manuscript into camera-ready copy with exceptional professionalism, competence and patience. The kindness and diligence of the librarians of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev and of the Jewish National and University Library of Jerusalem have greatly helped me. In particular, I wish to thank Mrs. Sabina Sapirstein and Mrs. Kochevet Ben-Shachar. Thanks are due to Mrs. Caroline Carlier and to Mrs. Miriam Rabinovich, who have helped me preparing the index of the Greek words, to my uncle Mr. Roberto Gentilli, who suggested the title of this work, and to the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Prof. Jimmy Weinblatt, who has generously supported both the English editing and preparation for publication. The mistakes which remain are obviously my responsibility. As I found in the work of Krebs, one of the first scholars who commented on some of Josephus' documents, "...confidentius spero, fore, ut lectores eruditi, si titubasse me, lapsumque viderint, mihi veniam concedant, humanitatemque praestent...". This work is a first step. More relevant parallels and a better understanding of the texts and of the problematic which they raise shall be made by others in the future. Last in prefaces to books come thanks to family members, but as everyone knows, in importance they should come first. Without patience, help and support at home, time, effort and energy cannot be devoted to scholarly research. I was greatly assisted by my husband, who assumed many roles and responsibilities, generously freeing me from numerous duties of home and family, by my mother, always so ready to help in so many ways, and by my eldest daughter Michal, whose gracious efforts have enabled me to devote myself to research over many years. I apologize to them, and to the little ones, Sarah, Rivkah and Malkah Leah, for the adjustments in family life that these years of work have necessitated. Jerusalem, June 1998 Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev
Table of Contents Preface List of Abbreviations
VII XIII
Introduction
Part I.
One The Evidence of Greek Inscriptions and Papyri 1.
2.
II.
1
15
Documents Written in the Republican Period a. Decrees Issued by Roman Magistrates b. Senatus Consulta c. Letters Written by Roman Magistrates d. Decrees Issued by the Councils of Greek Cities
'. .
Documents Written in the Imperial Period a. Imperial Edicts b. Edicts Issued by Roman Prefects
16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20
The Greek and Roman Documents Dealing with the Jewish Rights Quoted by Josephus
22
Introduction
22
1.
2.
Ant. XIV, 185-189. Josephus's Introductory Comments Ant. XIV, 190-195. Caesar's Letter to Sidon, Accompanying an Alleged Decree Concerning Hyrcanus II
. .
25
31
Ant. XIV, 196. Josephus' Introductory Comments
54
Ant. XIV, 196-198. Fragment of a Senatus Confirming Caesar's Decree
55
Consultum
3.
Ant. XIV, 199. Fragment of a Senatus Confirming Caesar's Decree
Consultum
4.
Ant. XIV, 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 . Fragment of a Senatus Confirming Caesar's Decisions
Consultum
5.
Ant. XIV, 202-210. Fragment of a Senatus Confirming Caesar's Decision
Consultum
6.
Ant. XIV, 211-212. Fragment of a Senatus Confirming Caesar's Decision
Consultum
68 74 80 102
Table of
7.
Contents
Ant. XIV, 213-216. Letter Possibly Written by Octavian Concerning Delian Jews Ant. XIV, 217-218. Josephus' Introductory Comments
8.
107 ...
119
Ant. XIV, 219-222. Senatus Consultum Confirming Caesar's Decisions After His Death
121
Ant. XIV, 223-224. Josephus' Introductory Comments 9.
...
137
Ant. XIV, 225-227. Letter of the Proconsul P. Cornelius Dolabella to Ephesus Ant. XIV, 228. Josephus' Closing Comments
139 149
10. Ant. XIV, 228-229. First Version of the Roman Jews' Exemption from Military Service at Ephesus by the Consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus
150
11. Ant. XIV, 230. Letter of the Legate and Propraetor Ampius Balbus to Ephesus
163
Titus
12. Ant. XIV, 231-232. Proposal for a Decree Made by the Magistrates of Delos
168
Am. XIV, 232. Josephus'Closing Comments
172
13. Ant. XIV, 234. Second Version of the Roman Jews' Exemption from Military Service at Ephesus by the Consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus
173
14. Ant. XIV, 235. Letter by the Proquaestor Lucius Antonius to Sardis
176
and
Propraetor
15. Ant. XIV, 236-237. Declaration by Roman Persons Concerning the Background of Lentulus' Exemption of Roman Jews from Military Service
182
16. Ant. XIV, 237-240. Third Version of the Roman Jews' Exemption from Military Service at Ephesus by the Consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus
186
17. Ant. XIV, 241-243. Letter of the Magistrates of Laodicea 18. Ant. XIV, 244-246. Letter of a Roman Proconsul Miletus
.
192
to 199
19. Ant. XIV, 256-258. Decree Issued by the People of Halicarnassus
206
20. Ant. XIV, 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 . Decree Issued by the People of Sardis .
217
21. Ant. XIV, 262-264. Decree Issued by the People of Ephesus Ant. XIV, 265-267. Josephus' Closing Comments Ant. XVI, 160-161. Josephus' Introductory Comments 22. Ant. XVI, 162-165. Edict Issued by Augustus Concerning Asian Jews
226 230
. . .
233 235
Table of Contents
XI
Ant. XVI, 165. Josephus' Closing Comments
257
23. Ant. XVI, 166. Mandatum Sent by Augustus to Norbanus Flaccus
258
Ant. XVI, 166. Josephus' Closing Comments
261
Ant. XVI, 167. Josephus' Introductory Comments
262
24. Ant. XVI, 167-168. Letter of Agrippa to Ephesus
262
25. Ant. XVI, 169-170. Letter of Agrippa to Cyrene
273
26. Ant. XVI, 171. Letter of Gaius Norbanus Flaccus to Sardis .
281
Ant. XVI, 172. Josephus' Introductory Comments
284
27. Ant. XVI, 172-173. Letter of Julius Antonius to Ephesus
.
285
. . .
294
Ant. XVL 174-178. Josephus' Closing Comments Ant. XIX, 278-279. Josephus' Introductory Comments
290
28. Ant. XIX, 280-285. Edict Issued by Claudius Concerning Alexandrian Jews
.
295
Ant. XIX, 286. Josephus' Comments
.
326
29. Ant. XIX, 2 8 7 - 2 9 1 . Edict Issued by Claudius Concerning "the Rest of the World"
328
Ant. XIX, 292. Josephus' Closing Comments Ant. XIX, 300-302. Josephus' Introductory Comments 30. Ant. XIX, 3 0 3 - 3 1 1 . Publius Petronius' Letter of Dora
342 . . .
343
. . .
344
Ant. XIX, 312. Josephus' Closing Comments
356
III. Conclusions 1. 2.
357
Character and Features of the Documents Quoted by Josephus
357
Josephus' Approach to His Sources
368
IV. Table of the Jewish Rights According to the Documents Quoted by Josephus
Part I.
II.
374
1.
Julius Caesar's Time
374
2.
From Caesar's to Claudius' Time
375
Two Did Bronze Tablets Concerning Jewish Rights Really Exist?
. .
381
1.
The Testimony of Josephus
381
2.
The Testimony of Inscriptions
382
The Problem of Josephus' Sources
388
XII
Table of
Contents
1.
Literary Sources a. Nicolaus of Damascus b. Agrippa I c. Philo
388 388 391 393
2.
Archives a. Roman Archives b. The Archives of the Jewish Diaspora c. How Did the Documents Reach Josephus?
394 394 399 405
III. The Right to Follow Jewish Customs and Laws 1.
409
From the Persian Period to the Beginning of Roman Rule
2.
Julius Caesar's Time
3.
The Confirmations: from Antonius' to Claudius' days
4.
What the Right "to Live According to Jewish Laws and Customs" Meant in Practice
409 412 . . .
430
IV. The Geographical and Chronological Validity of the Jewish Rights 1.
V.
419
439
Introduction
439
2.
Geographical Validity
439
3.
Chronological Validity
446
Were the Jewish Rights a Privilege in the Roman World? . . . .
451
1.
Introduction
451
2.
Which Jewish Rights Were Actual Privileges?
454
3.
The Right to Live "According to the Jewish Customs and Laws"
460
4.
The Right to Send Money to the Temple of Jerusalem
5.
The Jews and the Imperial Cult
471
6.
Conclusion
481
Bibliography Indexes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
. . .
468
483 Sources Important Greek Words Personal Names Names of Peples Geographical Names Selected Topics
495 504 513 515 516 517
List of Abbreviations
1. Inscriptions and Papyri Aphr. BGU CIJ CPJ FIRA GC
2
= = = = = =
IGSK ILS OGIS RDGE
= = = =
SEG SIG
= =
Joyce Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, London 1982 Berliner griechische Urkunden Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani J.H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia 1989 Inschriften griechischer Staedte aus Kleinasien Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East, Balti more 1969 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 2. Manuscripts of Josephus
P F L A M V W O R
= = = = = = = = =
Codex Codex Codex Codex Codex Codex Codex Codex Codex
Palatinus gr. no. 14 Laurentianus plut. 69 cod. 20 bibliothecae publicae Lugdunensis Batavorum F 13 Ambrosianus F 128 Medicaeus bibliothecae Laurentianae plutei 69 cod. 10 Vaticanus gr. no. 147 Vaticanus gr. 984 Oxoniensis Regius 3. Periodicals
AC AClass ACS AH AICA AJAH
= = = = = =
L'Antiquite classique Acta Classica American Classical Studies Ancient History Annali dell'Istituto di corrispondenza archeologica American Journal of Ancient History
XIV
List of
AJPh AJT Anc.Soc. Annates (ESC) ANRW AP ASNP ASPL BCH BIDR BSEAA CISA
= = = = = = = = = = = =
CA CJ CPh CQ CRAI
= = = = =
CW EC GRBS HR . HSPh HTR HZ ILR JEA JH JJP JJS JOAI
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
JQR JRS JSJ
= = =
JSS JTS MGWJ PAAJR PBSR PCPhS
= = = = = =
Abbreviations
American Journal of Philology American Journal of Theology Ancient Society Annales: economies, societes, civilisations Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Archiv fur Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa Acta Societatis Philologae Lipsiensis Bulletin de correspondance hellenique Bullettino dell'Istituto di Diritto Romano "Vittorio Scialoja" Boletin del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueologia Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica dell' Universita del sacro Cuore Classical Antiquity The Classical Journal Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres The Classical World Etudes Classiques Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies History of Religions Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Historische Zeitschrift Israel Law Review Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jewish History Journal of Juristic Papyrology Journal of Jewish Studies Jahresheft des Osterreichischen archaologischen Instituts in Wien Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Papers of the British School at Rome Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
List of
PP QIASA RA RB REJ REL RFIC RHDFE RHPhR RID A RM RMI RN RSA SCI SCO SDHJ StTh TAPA
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
VDI WJA ZDPV ZNW
= = = =
ZPE ZSSR
= =
Abbreviations
XV
La Parola del Passato Quaderni dellTstituto di archeologia e storia antica Revue archeologique Revue biblique Revue des etudes juives Revue des etudes latines Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica Revue historique de droit francaise et etranger Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquite Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie La Rassegna Mensile di Israel Revue Numismatique Rivista Storica dell'Antichita Scripta Classica Israelica Studi Classici e Orientali Studia et documenta historiae et iuris Studia Theologica Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Vestnik drevnej istorii Wiirzburger Jahrbiicher fur die Altertumswissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift der Savigny — Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte 4. Reference Works
CAH CHJ CRJNT
CSS DA GLAJJ MRR
= Cambridge Ancient History = Cambridge History of Judaism = Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum: The Jewish People in the First Century, I, ed. S. Safrai, M. Stern, Assen 1974. = Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, ed. R. Katzoff, Y. Petroff, D. Schaps, Ramat Gan 1996. = Dissertation Abstracts. International Abstracts of Disserta tions. Ann Arbor, Mich. Univ. Microfilms = M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Jerusalem, I, 1972; II, 1980. = T.R. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, New York 1952; III, Supplement, Atlanta 1986.
XVI
List of 2
PIR RGE SEHHW
Abbreviations
= Prosopographia Imperii Romani = Rome and the Greak East to the Death of Augustus, edited and translated by R.K. Sherk, Cambridge 1984. = M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I, II, Oxford 1941.
Introduction The Roman and Greek documents quoted in the Antiquities of Josephus represent the main information we have concerning the rights and privileges bestowed upon the Jews, both in Judaea and in the diaspora, by the Roman authorities in the first century BCE and in the first century CE. These documents therefore are extremely important for the reconstruction of the Roman policy towards Jewish customs and practices both in Judaea and in the diaspora. They also help shed some light on the complex, and often otherwise unattested, relations between the Jews and the Greeks in communities such as those of Cyrene, Alexandria, Ephesus, Pergamum, Delos, Miletus, Tralles, Delos, Paros, Laodicea, Halicarnassus, Sardis and Dora on the Palestinian coast. The documents dealing with Jewish rights quoted by Josephus in his Antiquities are scattered in three main groups. In the fourteenth book, while dealing with the period of Caesar, Josephus inserts documents written in the republican age. At the beginning, documents from Caesar's time appear: a decree issued by Caesar himself concerning Hyrcanus II and Judaea (document no. 1) and a number of fragmentary quotations of senatus consulta which confirm Caesar's decisions (documents nos. 2-6). They are followed by a senatus consultum issued during the consulship of Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabella after Caesar's death (no. 8), and by three fragmentary versions of the decree issued by the consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus in 49 BCE, granting exemption from military service to the Roman Ephesian Jews (nos. 10, 13, 16). We also find five letters concerning Jewish rights sent by Roman magistrates to the council and people of Greek cities of Asia Minor and of the islands (nos. 7, 9, 11, 14, 18). Then a number of Greek documents appear: a letter sent by a Greek city to a Roman magistrate (no. 17) and four decrees issued by the councils of Greek cities in Asia Minor (nos. 12, 19-21), all of them dealing with Jewish rights. Documents written in the Augustan period are quoted by Josephus in the sixteenth book of the Antiquities, while dealing with Herod's reign. They consist of two documents issued by the emperor himself, namely, an edict concerning the Asian Jews (no. 22) and a mandatum sent to Norbanus Flaccus (no. 23), and of four letters written to the council of Greek cities by Agrippa (nos. 24 and 25), by Gaius Norbanus Flaccus (no. 26) and by Julius Antonius (no. 27). With one exception, Agrippa's letter to the council of Cyrene (no. 25), all the documents written in Augustus' time deal with the rights of the Asian Jews.
2
Introduction
Finally, three edicts issued at the middle of the first century CE appear in the nineteenth book of the Antiquities. Two of them are issued by the emperor Claudius: the first deals with the Alexandrian Jews (no. 28), the second concerns the Jews "in the rest of the world" (no. 29) and the last document is an edict issued by the prefect Petronius concerning the conflict between Greeks and Jews at Dora on the Palestinian coast, which confirms Claudius' conferral upon the Jews of the right to follow their ancestral customs and laws (no. 30). It therefore appears that these documents are of different kinds, including decrees passed by Roman magistrates (Lentulus, Caesar and Petronius), senatus consulta, letters written by Roman officials to the councils of Greek cities and edicts and mandata issued by the emperor; among the Greek documents, we find one letter and decrees issued by the councils of Greek cities. Josephus is not the first historian who includes the text of documents in his historical narrative. "Citation of documents", Rajak observes, "is not entirely alien to Greek historiography — witness the late Thucydides — but it is particularly a hall-mark of near-Eastern writing, starting with Ezra's decrees of Cyrus, and making a pronounced appearance in the Roman treaties and Seleucid decrees of Maccabees I and II". No doubt, this tradition was part of a literary design, which however at the same time had clear apologetic purposes. Josephus himself shares them with his public: "And here it seems to me necessary to make public all the honors given our nation and the alliances made with them by the Romans and their autocrats, in order that the other nations may not fail to recognize that both the kings of Asia and of Europe have held us in esteem and have admired our bravery and loyalty. Since many persons, however, out of enmity to us refuse to believe what has been written about us by Persians and Macedonians because these writings are not found everywhere and are not deposited even in public places but are found only 1
2
1
Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 121. S e e also A. M o m i g l i a n o , "Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish and Greek Historiography", in: Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, Middletown 1977, pp. 3 1 - 3 3 . See P. Collomp, "La place de Josephe dans la technique de l'historiographie hellenistique", in: Etudes historiques de la Faculte des Lettres de Strasbourg, Paris 1947, pp. 8 1 - 8 2 . The list of the Roman treaties and Seleucid decrees cited in I and II Maccabees is given in Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?" (supra, note 1), p. 121, note 50. S e e also eadem, "Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule: a N e w Approach", in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, V: Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context, ed. W . S . Green, Brown Judaic Studies 32, Atlanta 1985, p. 2 2 . A s for the documents issued by Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman authorities on behalf of the Jews quoted by Josephus, see L. Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione della storia ellenistica e romana contenuta nelle 'Antichita Giudaiche' di Giuseppe (libri X I I - X X ) " , Studi Ellenistici, I, ed. B. Virgilio, Pisa 1984, pp. 42^4. 2
3
Introduction
among us and some other barbarian peoples, while against the decrees of the Romans nothing can be said — for they are kept in the public places of the cities and are still to be found engraved on bronze tablets in the Capitol... from these same documents I will furnish proof of my statements" (Ant. XIV, 186-188). Josephus also apologizes to his public for not quoting all the available documents: "I have refrained from citing them all as being both superfluous and disagreeable; for I cannot suppose that anyone is so stupid that he will actually refuse to believe the statements about the friendliness of the Romans towards us, when they have demonstrated this in a good many decrees relating to us, or will not admit that we are making truthful statements on the basis of the examples we have given" (Ant. XIV, 267). Similarly we read in Ant. XVI, L74-178: "Now it was necessary for me to cite these decrees since this account of our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect and were not prevented by our rulers from practising any of our ancestral customs but, on the contrary, even had their co-operation in preserving our religion and our way of honoring God. And if I frequently mention these decrees, it is to reconcile the other peoples to us and to remove the causes for hatred which have taken root in thoughtless persons among us as well as among them. For there is no people which always follow the same customs, and it also happens that there are great differences among cities. And it is most profitable for all men, Greeks and barbarians alike, to practice justice, about which our laws are most concerned and, if we sincerely abide by them, they make us well disposed and friendly to all men. We therefore have a right to expect this same attitude from them, for one should not consider foreigness a matter of differences in practice but of whether there is a proper attitude to goodness. For this is common to all men and alone enables society to endure". Since Josephus' purposes are overtly apologetic, it is clear that he quotes only those documents which exhibit a favourable attitude toward the Jews. In the same period of time, other documents were issued by the Roman authorities which attested a much less favourable attitude towards the Jews. Such were the orders of expulsion of Roman Jews which were issued several times from the second century BCE to Claudius' time, the decree issued by Flaccus, and the imposition of the payment of the Fiscus Judaicus after the 3
4
3
M. Stern, "The Expulsions of Jews from R o m e in Antiquity" (Hebr.), Zion, 4 4 , 1979, pp. 1-27; P. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. A Sociological Approach, Cambridge 1986, pp. 89, 9 1 - 9 4 ; Christiane Saulnier, "II les chassa de Rome", Le Monde de la Bible, 5 1 , 1987, pp. 8 - 9 ; D. Slingerland, "Suetonius Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orosius' Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman Jews", JQR, 8 3 , 1992, pp. 1 2 7 - 1 4 4 ; L.V. Rutgers, "Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of R o m e during the First Century C.E.", CA, 13, 1, 1994, pp. 5 6 - 7 4 . Barclay observes that "Josephus would take care to omit reference to those occasions (e.g. the decision of Flaccus which w e know from Cicero) on which Roman rule was less accomodating to Jewish sensibilities.... Josephus gives a highly partisan selection of 4
4
Introduction 5
defeat of the Jewish rebellion in 7 0 . It is also likely, as Trebilco suggests, that some Jewish claims to rights were rejected by the Romans at certain times. In other words, documents existed which for obvious reasons Josephus chooses not to quote. It follows that the picture which emerges from the documents that appear in the Antiquities is one-sided. It is also a partial picture. The same Josephus admits that "there are many other such decrees... I have refrained from citing them all as being both superfluous and disagreeable..." (Ant. XIV, 265-6). The Jewish diaspora was widely dispersed. Philo mentions "Jewish colonies sent out at divers times to the neighbouring lands Egypt, Phoenicia, the part of Syria called the Hollow and the rest as well and the lands lying far apart, Pamphylia, Cilicia, most of Asia up to Bithynia and the corners of Pontus, similarly also in Europe, Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia, Aetolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth and most of the best parts of Peloponnese. And not only are the mainlands full of Jewish colonies but also the most highly esteemed of the islands Euboea, Cyprus, Crete" (Leg. 281-2). It therefore appears that the texts quoted by Josephus do not deal with diaspora Judaism in Roman times in a uniform way, but with some specific communities only, and chiefly with the Asian ones. Beyond them, a number of documents deal with Judean Jews, such as those written in Caesar's days (nos. 1-6), and the senatus consultum passed during the consulship of Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabella (no. 8). Only one document concerns all the Jews (document no. 29), another Alexandrian Jewry (document no. 28), a third one the Jewish community of Cyrene (document no. 25). Josephus gives us only selected documents, choosing ones which help him to substantiate the notion he was interested in stressing over and over, namely, that through republican and imperial times, the Romans respected and honored the Jewish people. Josephus' apologetic purposes in quoting his documents coincide here with those of the Roman propaganda, which emphasized the Romans' readiness to recognize the rights of the peoples living under their rule. The reason which the Romans gave to this policy of theirs was religious considerations and respect for the gods, to whom Rome owed its own good luck. These motives, which appears in epigraphical sources (such as RDGE nos. 23, 11. 37-38; 34, 6
7
8
material" (J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 6 3 ) . Contemporary sources are papyri concerning Egypt (CPJ II, nos. 1 6 0 - 2 2 9 ) . See also CP J, I, pp. 6 0 , 8 0 - 8 5 , and GLAJJ, I, pp. 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 ; II, p. 129. P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, p. 12. A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 6 8 2 . On the material left out by Josephus, see J. Juster, Les Juifs dans V empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 5 2 - 1 5 4 and Rajak, "Jewish Rights" (supra, note 2), p. 3 4 , note 12. On the apologetic function of the quotation of documents in Josephus, see J.D. Gauger, Beitrdge zur jiidischen Apologetik, Koln-Bonn 1977, pp. 9 - 1 1 . S e e S.J.D. Cohen, "Respect for Judaism by Gentiles according to Josephus", HTR, 80, 1987, pp. 4 0 9 ^ 3 0 . 5
6
7
8
5
Introduction
11. 11-24; 38,11. 23-25; Aphr. no. 8, 1. 39) are the same stressed by Josephus while quoting Nicolaus: "it is not only to us but to almost all men that you have been benefactors in your rule by preserving existing rights and adding more than were hoped for, and one might make an endless speech if one were to enumerate each of the benefits which they have received from you" (Ant. XVI, 4 9 ) . Consciously or not, this message was probably meant for different publics. On one hand, Josephus aimed at reminding the Romans of the old tradition on which the Jewish rights were based — an issue which had to be particularly urgent in Domitian's d a y . On the other hand, he surely had in mind also his Greek readers, whom he wanted to be aware that the Jews throughout the empire stood under the special protection of the Romans. As Tessa Rajak observes, "Josephus wanted to make a broad case for the acceptance by pagans of the practice of the Jewish religion among them and that of paganism by Jews, namely, for mutual understanding between Greeks and Jews. This was an open and problematic issue in the period in which Josephus lived. An attempt by the Greco-Syrian citizens of Antioch to get permission from Titus to destroy the bronze tablets on which Jewish rights were engraved... shows that the arrangements still had value for the Jews as late as A.D. 71. The problems involved therefore were still real to Josephus". Troiani, too, emphasizes that Josephus' interest in his documents was due to their contemporary significance. 9
10
11
The Jewish situation in the diaspora seems to have been particularly tense in Josephus' days and he himself was somehow involved, as we understand from his own statement in Bell. VII, 448. Latent unrest was to explode less than one generation after Josephus' death in the so-called "Jewish revolt" in Trajan's days. "Where a document was favourable" Tessa Rajak observes, "it was a piece of ammunition in a fight for religious and, consequently, often physical survival. Roman decisions mattered because they sought to control Greek official decisions, and Greek official decisions mattered not, primarily, because of the precise issue to which they were addressed, but because they influenced opinion and behaviour and because any point of difference which arose was ground which, for each party, had to be defended". 12
It is also probable that, quoting his documents, Josephus wanted to reach the attention of his fellow Jews too. He himself states that one of his purposes is that of "reconciling the other nations to us and of removing the causes for hatred which have taken root in thoughtless persons among us as well as 9
See Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione" (supra, note 2), p. 3 9 , note 2. See M.H. Williams, "Domitian, the Jews and the 'Judaizers'. A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and MaiestasT, Historia, 3 9 , 1990, pp. 1 9 6 - 2 1 1 . Rajak, "Jewish Rights" (supra, note 2), p. 2 2 ; eadem, "Was There a Roman Charter?" (supra, note 1), p. 121; Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione" (supra, note 2), p. 4 5 . Rajak, "Jewish Rights" (supra, note 2), p. 3 1 . 1 0
1 1
1 2
6
Introduction
among them", which Troiani is probably correct interpreting as referring to diaspora J e w s . At the same time, Josephus had probably in mind also the Jews living in Judaea. "If the Romans are the basis for the freedom of the Jews to follow the law of Moses", Moehring observes, "and if the Romans did not revoke these rights even after they had crushed the Judaean rebellion of 6 6 - 7 0 CE, then the lesson for any Jewish reader is clear: it would be criminal madness ever again to endanger the peaceful relations between Rome and the Jews". No doubt, Josephus had many good reasons to quote his documents, and this is one of the reasons which lead scholars to doubt their authenticity. The issue of the authenticity of these documents is actually the first question to be asked, namely, whether we are allowed to use them as authentic historical documents and to draw conclusions from their content — a question often dealt with since the eighteenth century, but often with preconceptions which invalidate the conclusions. Moehring correctly emphasizes that often apologetic trends in modern research seem to have been responsible both for the acceptance of these documents as authentic and for their rejection as forgeries. "Shifts in the interpretation of the documents cited by Josephus", Moehring observes, "— and in practice this means their acceptance as authentic or their rejection as forgeries — are based not so much on intrinsic factors, i.e. better historical knowledge of the Sitz im Leben of the documents themselves, but rather to a high degree on apologetic concerns of modern historians. ...There certainly is a great amount of pseudohistory present: the use of Josephus for contemporary apologetic purposes without regard for the intention of his writings". Moehring's critical examination of representative modern interpretations of selected passages in Josephus' documents is surely highly instructive. 13
14
15
Even independently of any theological preconceptions, the documents quoted by Josephus raise questions not always easy to answer pertaining to their possible authenticity. At close inspection, they reveal textual corruptions, fragmentary state, and chronological mistakes. Moreover, no order whatsover may be found among the documents themselves. No wonder why scholars conceived the possibility that Josephus may have forged the documents he quotes. 16
1 3
L. Troiani, "Un nuovo studio su Giuseppe", Athenaum, 6 3 , 1985, p. 192; idem, "I lettori delle Antichitd Giudaiche di Giuseppe: prospettive e problemi", Athenaeum, 6 4 , 1986, pp. 3 4 4 - 3 5 0 . H.R. Moehring, "Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Josephus", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, pp. 8 9 6 - 7 . H.R. Moehring, "The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus", in: Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, HI, ed. J. Neusner, Leiden 1975, p. 126. M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 85. 1 4
1 5
1 6
7
Introduction
It is however a fact that since the eighteenth century and in spite of the doubts concerning their authenticity, Josephus' documents have been used as historical sources, and philological and historical aspects emerging from them have been examined thoroughly. At the beginning of this century Josephus' documents, in spite of their corruptions and mistakes, were regarded as substantially authentic documents, so that Juster used them in his comprehensive survey on the Jews in the Roman empire without even discussing the issue of their authenticity. Between 1900 and 1924, the works of Willrich appeared, displaying an extremely critical attitude toward the documents written in Hellenistic times quoted by Josephus. He does not relate, however,, to those from Roman t i m e s . In the twenties, Rice Holmes, dealing with the decrees written in Caesar's time, observes that "Josephus' report of the decrees which Caesar made in favour of the Jews has occasioned voluminous controversy; but whoever follows it will find that the points in dispute are comparatively unimportant and that the statements which command general assent suffice for the essential truth of history". In the fifties, however, Bickermann felt that more research was necessary to reach definite conclusions, and he examined a small number of Josephus' documents, namely, those dealing with Antiochus III and the Jews, comparing 17
18
19
20
1 7
J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro Iudaeis facta e losepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768; T. M o m m s e n , "Sui modi usati da' Romani nel conservare e pubblicare le leggi ed i senatusconsulti", AICA, 30, 1858, pp. 1 8 1 - 2 1 2 ; L. Mendelssohn, De senati consulti Romanorum ab Josepho Antiq. XIV 8, 5 relati temporibus commentatio, D i s s . Leipzig 1873; F. Ritschl, "Romische Senatusconsulte bei Josephus", RM, 2 9 , 1874, pp. 3 3 7 - 3 4 4 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 8 7 - 2 8 8 ; F. Ritschl-L. Mendelssohn, "Nochmals der romische Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus Antiqu. X I V , 8, 5", RM, 30, 1875, pp. 4 1 9 - 4 3 5 ; T. M o m m s e n , "Der Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus ant. 14, 8, 5", Hermes, 9, 1875, pp. 2 8 1 - 2 9 1 ; B. N i e s e , "Bemerkungen iiber die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeol. B. XIII. XIV. XVI.", Hermes, 11, 1876, pp. 4 6 6 - 4 8 8 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Zu den Urkunden bei Josephus", RM, 3 2 , 1877, pp. 2 4 9 - 2 5 8 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte im Josephus Alterth. X I V , 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, pp. 1 7 6 - 8 3 ; 2 1 6 - 2 8 ; 3 0 0 - 2 2 ; W. Judeich, Caesar im Orient, Leipzig 1885, pp. 1 1 9 - 1 4 1 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scripto publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, pp. 9 6 - 1 1 6 ; A. Bilchler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten und die romischen Steuern in den Erlassen Caesars", Festschrift zum Achtzigsten geburstage Moritz Steinschneiders, Leipzig 1896, pp. 9 1 - 1 0 9 ; M. R o s t o w z e w , Geschichte der Staatspacht in der romischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian, Leipzig 1902, pp. 4 7 6 - 4 7 8 . See also E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, pp. 2 7 2 - 4 , notes 2 0 - 2 3 . 1 8
Juster, Les Juifs (supra, note 7), pp. 1 3 2 - 1 5 8 , 2 1 3 - 2 4 2 . H. Willrich, Judaica. Forschungen zur hellenistisch-judischen Geschichte und Literatur, Gottingen 1900; idem, "Caligula", Klio, 3, 1903, pp. 8 5 - 1 1 8 , 2 8 8 - 3 1 7 , 3 9 7 ^ 7 0 ; idem, Urkundenfdlschung in der hellenistisch-judischen Literatur, Gottingen 1924. T. Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, III, N e w York 1967 (first ed. 1923), p. 507. 1 9
2 0
8
Introduction
them, both in their content and in their formal features, to extant original documents from Seleucid times. The conclusion reached pointed toward authenticity. Until the middle of the seventies, a general tendency is found in contemporary scholarship to believe that Josephus' documents may be safely used for historical reconstructions. Then a revolutionary article written by Moehring appeared in 1975. After the Jews had lost their war, Moehring observes, Josephus wanted to conquer a place for them in the minds of the educated among their opponents, and in order to achieve his end, he was willing to use any literary weapon at his disposal. Josephus' documents would therefore be not real documents, but possible forgeries, which possessed not much more than antiquarian value in Josephus' time and should be read today as part of Josephus' apologetic scheme. As confirmation, Moehring points to the numerous corruptions which appear in the documents, chronological mistakes, and the lack of order among the documents themselves. Josephus' documents are therefore regarded as "possible forgeries, an apologetic device by a highly partisan author". Moehring's conclusions are accepted by Attridge and Alexander. Hennig and Botermann, too, label Josephus' documents (at least those concerning Claudius' time) as forgeries. These conclusions, however, are not generally shared and Josephus' documents continue to be used as historical pieces of evidence by scholars such as Millar, Badian, Sherk, Trebilco, Huzar, Yavetz and Ben Shalom, and also 21
22
23
24
25
2 1
E. Bikerman, "Une question d'authenticite: les privileges juifs", Annuaire de Vlnstitut de philologie et d'histoire orientates et slaves, 13, 1953, Melanges Isidore Levy = E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, pp. 2 4 - 4 3 . The documents are used as historical sources by F.M. Heichelheim, "Roman Syria", in: An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV, ed. T. Frank, Baltimore 1938, pp. 2 3 1 - 2 3 3 ; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, II, pp. 9 9 9 - 1 0 0 1 ; E. Bammel, "Die Neuordnung des Pompeius und das romisch-judische Biindnis", ZDPV, 7 5 , 1959, p. 82. Tcherikover g o e s so far as to state that the documents quoted by Josephus "fortunately are free from suspicion of forgery. They may therefore be utilized" (V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 3 0 6 ) , and in Vermes-Millar's revision of Schiirer's The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, Edinburgh 1973, p. 5 3 , note 19, w e read: "no-one today doubts the essential authenticity of the documents". 2 2
2 3
H.R. Moehring, "The Acta pro Judaeis" (supra, note 15), pp. 1 3 3 - 1 5 7 , especially pp. 129, 133 and 156. Attridge writes: "the numerous historical anomalies contained in Josephus' documents may be an indication that some of the documents are apologetic forgeries" (H.W. Attridge, "Josephus and his Works", in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M.E. Stone, A s s e n 1984, p. 2 2 6 ) , and Alexander observes that some of Josephus' texts could have been fabricated "with an e y e to tangible, political advantage" (P.S. Alexander, "Epistolary Literature" in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M.E. Stone, Assen 1984, p. 588). D . Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum'", Chiron, 5, 1975, pp. 3 2 6 - 3 3 4 ; Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, Stuttgart 1996, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 1 3 . 2 4
2 5
Introduction
9
by scholars who deal specifically with the documents themselves, such as Smallwood, Goldenberg, Rabello, Piattelli, Saulnier, Rajak, Hadas-Lebel, Sanders, Stemberger and Barclay. None of these studies, however, takes into consideration the specific issues raised by Moehring, and adequate answers to his questions are still a desideratum in contemporary research. The issue is still an open one, and the time has come to devote to it more research. The problems raised by Moehring are real ones. Many of the documents quoted by Josephus are preserved in a fragmentary way; they contain 26
2 6
F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337), London 1977, p. 3 2 1 ; Eleanor Huzar, "Claudius — the Erudite Emperor", ANRW, II, 32, 1, 1984, p. 6 3 8 ("The edicts [quoted by Josephus] are in the style of Claudius, and, indeed, are closely paralleled in an indisputably Claudian letter to the people of Alexandria dated shortly after these edicts. In the light of the similitarities of the documents and the fact that Josephus was publishing his work when the inscriptions could well have been extant, it is reasonable to see these edicts as genuine"); Trebilco, Jewish Communities (supra, note 6), p. 7; Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar: The Limits of Charisma (Hebr.), Tel Aviv 1992, pp. 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 ; I. Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Hebr.), Jeusalem 1993, pp. 8 - 1 0 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 558 ("The authenticity of the documents is hardly in doubt. Though some are mutilated, the style and terminology are those of genuine Roman and municipal enactments"); R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the T i m e of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 4 1 5 , note 12; Rabello, "The Legal Condition" (supra, note 7), p. 682; Daniela Piattelli, Cohcezioni giuridiche e metodi costruttivi dei giuristi orientali, Milano 1981, p. 37; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1 9 8 1 , pp. 1 6 1 - 9 5 ; Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?" (supra, note 1), p. 109 ("every new investigation [even by the most sceptical of researchers] serves to confirm that the formal features of the documents are correct for genre and period, to a degree which makes it very difficult to c o n c e i v e of them as forgeries"; eadem, "Jewish Rights" (supra, note 2), pp. 2 0 , 3 3 , note 3; Mireille Hadas-Lebel, "L'image de Rome aupres des Juifs - 1 6 4 +70", ANRW, II, 2 0 , 1987, p. 789; E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, London 1990, p. 3 6 6 , note 3 9 ("I accept the quotations of documents in Josephus as being generally authentic, as do most scholars"); G. Stemberger, "Die Juden im Romischen Reich: Unterdruckung und Privilegierung einer Minderheit", Christlicher Antijudaismus und Judischer Antipaganismus: Ihre Motive und Hintergriinde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, ed. H. Frohnhofen, Hamburg 1990, p. 10; L.V. Rutgers, "Roman Policy towards the Jews: Expulsions from the City of R o m e during the First Century C.E.", CA, 13, 1, 1994, p. 58 ("We need to ask whether textual difficulties suffice to discredit altogether the evidence presented by Josephus as regards the substance of these decrees. The answer to this question is negative. For example, it is well known from sources other than Josephus that attacks on Jewish property were punished immediately by the Roman authorities. It is likewise well known that anyone w h o attempted to confiscate money destined for the (Second) Temple in Jerusalem was liable to prosecution. Last but not least, evidence for Jews serving in the Roman military is virtually nonexistent. Such evidence suggests uniformly that when Roman magistrates intervened in disputes involving Jews, they were enforcing decrees very similar to the ones Josephus claims the Romans issued. There thus exists little circumstantial evidence to suggest that Josephus invented these decrees to insert them in his Antiquities for purely apologetic purposes"); Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (supra, note 4), p. 2 6 3 ("although each document needs to be separately assessed, there is sufficient material here of probable authenticity to g i v e us solid ground on which to build").
10
Introduction
corruptions, especially in the spelling of the names and in the titles of Roman magistrates; often the date is lacking; there is no order whatsoever among the documents themselves, and it also happens that documents from Hasmonean times are mistakenly quoted as if they were dealing with the Roman period (the so called chronological mistakes). Moehring is correct. The documents quoted by Josephus create a problematic which must be examined thoroughly. The meaning of these documents and their possible interpretation from the historical point of view, too, are a matter of controversy in contemporary research. Recently, the legal value which has to be ascribed to these documents has been challenged for the first time. The view maintained by Juster and by most scholars who wrote after him holds that the grants bestowed by Caesar upon Hyrcanus II had legal value and constituted the basis for all the grants they were later to receive. In other words, the Jews received a definite legal position in Caesar's d a y s . The indisputable fact, however, that the grants given to the Jews by the Romans were openly ignored by their Greek neighbours and had to be given over and over again by later Roman authorities may cast some doubt on their actual legal v a l u e . The meaning of the Jewish rights in the context of the Roman policy toward the Jews has to be defined too. No doubt, Jewish monotheism constituted a particular, special feature in its pagan environment, with an "unknown G o d " impossible to see and impossible to worship in image or statue. The Jewish Divinity could not be brought around in the Roman triumph of 70 CE, and the only way to emphasize the superiority of Roman gods over the Jewish One was the transformation of the tax payed to the Temple of Jerusalem into a new tax for the reconstruction of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. All this was indubitably unusual. We may however wonder whether this automatically also means that the rights bestowed upon the Jews by the 27
28
29
2 7
Juster, Les Juifs (supra, note 7), pp. 2 1 3 - 2 1 7 ; S m a l l w o o d , The Jews (supra, note 2 6 ) , p. 124; A . M . Rabello, A Tribute to J. Juster: The Legal Condition of the Jews under Visigothic Kings, brought up-to-date, Jerusalem 1976, p. 2 2 0 , and idem, "The Legal Condition" (supra, note 7 ) , p. 6 9 2 . Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?" (supra, note 1), pp. 1 0 9 - 1 1 5 . This is the title of an article by Tessa Rajak ("The Unknown God", JJS, 2 8 , 1977, pp. 2 0 - 2 9 ) . Other 'Unknown G o d s ' , however, are well attested to in the Greco-Roman world. See E.J. Bickerman, "Anonymous Gods", Journal of the Warburg Institute, I, 1 9 3 7 - 8 = idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, III, Leiden 1986, pp. 2 7 0 - 2 8 1 . Van der Horst emphasizes that "in fact, the term dyvcocKx; Qeoc, is not unequivocal. It may mean a god w h o is quite w e l l - k n o w n to one people, but not or not yet known to another, i.e. a foreign deity.... It may mean a deity w h o s e name nobody knows because it has been forgotten.... Further, it may mean a god unknown to those w h o did not receive a special initiation or revelation, or unknown or unknowable — dyvcooToq can have both meanings — because of the limitations of human k n o w l e d g e " (P.W. van der Horst, "The Altar of the 'Unknown G o d ' in Athens" (Acts 17:23) and the "Cult of 'Unknown G o d s ' in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", ANRW, II, 18, 2, 1989, p. 1443. 2 8
2 9
11
Introduction
Romans were unusual and special, as Juster and most scholars who follow him tend to believe. An additional problem is constituted by the fact that Josephus' documents are often examined in modern research in a rather general way, without paying much attention to the particular formal features of each document. As Baumann points out, it is clear that in this way, considering them in toto, it is impossible to arrive at conclusions concerning both the problem of their authenticity and that of their historical meaning. Moreover, these documents do not stand in a vacuum and do not have to be examined only per se. The time has come to examine them against the background of the contemporary documents preserved by inscriptions and papyri coming from the Greco-Roman world. Such a comparison will hopefully shed some light on the questions which still remain open in contemporary research We shall start from the formal features of these documents. 30
3 0
U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 .
Part One
I. The Evidence of Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Both the decrees issued by Roman magistrates and those passed by the Roman senate quoted by Josephus cannot be compared with the actual original texts of Roman decrees, senatus consulta and edicta dealing with foreign peoples, since the overwhelming majority of them have been lost. Official copies, however, were made 'by the Roman senate and sent to the interested parties. From the Greek inscriptions, with commentary by Robert Sherk, we learn that documents dealing with foreign peoples were probably sent from Rome to the interested parties already translated into Greek. The remarkable uniformity both in phraseology and in vocabulary found in the surviving Greek inscriptions led Sherk to suggest that the translations into Gre.ek were probably not made in those cities or lands in which the copies have been found. One official source was probably responsible for them, and, in the light of the color latinus which they display, that source could only have been in Rome. Sherk concludes that the Greek inscriptions found in the Greek East preserve the official translations which could have been made by the same scribae who were in the aerarium, or by other personnel under their control. Such an assumption would satisfy the main requirements: a central office in Rome, a continuity of duty and professional ability. Sherk's conclusion concerning the republican period is shared by Lewis regarding the imperial era as well: "the language in which [imperial] replies were drafted was Latin, from which an imperial bureau translated into Greek for promulgation in Greek-speaking provinces". 1
The reason why the Roman senate itself must have taken care of the translations is clear: to avoid possible misinterpretations, which may not have been rare. This is explicitly stated by an unidentified Roman official, who writes to the judiciary centers of the province in Greek and explains: "The reason for which I wrote in Greek, do not ask, since it was my intention that nothing contrary to the (correct) interpretation of my letter could possibly be in your mind" (RDGE no. 52, 51/50 or 29 BCE = RGE no. 77, 11. 54-57).
1
Sherk, RDGE, pp. 1 3 - 1 9 ; E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, X V I , 1969, p. 1055; N. L e w i s , "The Process of Promulgation in R o m e ' s Eastern Provinces", Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A.Arthur Schiller, ed. R.S. Bagnall, W.V. Harris, Leiden 1986, pp. 1 2 7 - 8 . On p. 120, a letter is quoted by L e w i s , addressed to the aTparrryoi of some or all of the nomes of Egypt by the prefect of Egypt Q. Aemilius Saturninus in 198/9 CE (P.Yale inv. 2 9 9 ) , in which "the Greek before us simply reeks of Latin terminology and idiom from the first line". See also pp. 1 3 6 - 1 3 7 , where eight additional instances are examined.
16
/. The Evidence
of Greek Inscriptions
and
Papyri
The same purpose — that is, to avoid possibile misinterpretations — was probably behind the publication of decrees and senatus consulta both in Latin and in Greek. These copies of the original documents, translated into Greek, were sometimes used by their recipients to set up permanent records of those decrees which concerned them. These are the texts preserved by Greek inscriptions, which constitute an important parallel to Josephus' documents. Surely it is also possible to compare Josephus' documents with those quoted in literary sources such as Polybius, Livy, Cicero, Appianus, Dio, Suetonius and Tacitus. But it is always very difficult to establish what was the original text and what is the literary embellishment of the historians. Results of such an investigation are bound to be subjective and open to different interpretations. That is why this work focuses upon inscriptions and papyri. They, too, are not always exact faithful copies of the original texts. Often or usually (according to the different points of view of scholars), they seem to be more abridgments than exact copies, and they often lack some or even most formulas which we know appeared in senatus consulta. In any case, they probably represent the closest extant exemplars with which we may compare Josephus' documents. 2
3
4
1. D o c u m e n t s Written in the Republican Period
a. Decrees Issued by Roman
Magistrates
The decrees issued by Roman magistrates preserved by Greek inscriptions follow a common pattern. They start with the name of the responsible magistrate and his titles, in nominative, often followed by "said", eutev. Then the reasons are mentioned why the decree is issued, introduced by a genitive absolute or by e7t£i (as in RDGE no. 43 = RGE no. 50,11. 5-6 and 11. 11-12, 115 BCE), or possibly by OUK dyvooijfiev, as restored in RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63,1. 3, 81 BCE. Then the decision appears. It is introduced by eicpiva or £7t£Kpiva, as in Caesar's decree to Smyrna (RDGE no. 54 = RGE no. 80A, 1. 5, or Kpivaq evo%ov e l v a i Gavdcoi 7cap8%c6piaa as in RDGE no. 43 = RGE no. 50, 1. 20, 115 BCE [?]) (often followed by "with the advice of the council"), or by 08?i(o, as in RDGE no. 49A = RGE no. 62, 1. 13, 84 BCE. In RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70,11. 3-4, 73 BCE, we read: ujifiq e i S e v a i Po\)?u)u.£9a fiuac;.... Another verb which often appears to indicate the will of 2
S e e document no. 1, commentary to 11. 8 - 1 0 . The documents from imperial times cited by literary sources have been examined by Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975. T. Drew-Bear, "Three Senatus Consulta concerning the Province of Asia", Historia, 2 1 , 1972, p. 7 8 . See also below, p. 3 6 9 . 3
4
/. Documents
Written in the Republican
17
Period
the writer is dpeciceiv, which translates the Latin placere. At the end, we sometimes find a sanction provided for those who are going to transgress the decree.
b. Senatus
Consulta
The senatus consulta are composed of a fixed number of elements, which are of the utmost importance for us, inasmuch as they constitute the only possibility of understanding how close or how far Josephus' documents are from authentic known Roman senatus consulta. These elements have been examined by Sherk, >whose conclusions are quoted here verbatim. "Each senatus consultum -took a specific form, and was composed of four main sections: the prescript, the theme, the decree proper, and the mark of approval. The prescript gives the name and rank of the presiding magistrate, the day and the month of the meeting, the place, and the names of the witnesses. Dates are reproduced literally. Any Greek who was ignorant of the,Roman calendar would be unable to equate them with his own method of dating. The theme announces the relatio, with an introductory clause 7t£pi (iov ... Xoyovq 87toir|aaxo. It gives a summary of the events or the motives that prompted the relator to lay the matter before the senate, and it sometimes extends to several clauses in order to make the whole matter clear. At the conclusion pf the theme is found the phrase 7cepi xouxou xoi3 npdy|iaxo(; ovxooc; e8o^£v, which served to introduce the decree proper (oTicoq). The decree proper, in indirect discourse or introduced by ut, is technically the advice given by the senate to the magistrates who had brought forward the relatio for consideration. It had been obtained by a simple majority vote. If it included a remark or some kind of instruction to the magistrate, it was always softened by the traditional formula, si ei (eis) videbitur or ita uti ei (eis) e republica fideve sua videatur. The senate in strict theory did not issue orders. The mark of approval is the vote of the senate formally expressed: censuere (£8o£ev). However, it is not found in all decrees, a fact that may be attributed to the vagaries of a transcriber or stonecutter". 5
This last detail is especially important when examining Josephus' documents. It means that the lack of the mark of approval in Josephus' documents does not constitute in itself a proof against authenticity.
5
3
Sherk, RDGE, pp. 7 - 8 , 1 3 - 1 5 . S e e also T. M o m m s e n , Romisches Staatsrecht, III , 2, Leipzig 1888 (repr. Basel 1952), pp. 1004—1021; A. O'Brien Moore, "Senatus Consultum", RE, Suppl. VI, 1935, cols. 8 0 2 - 8 0 3 and Volterra, "Senatus Consulta" (supra, note 1), pp. 1047-1078.
18
/. The Evidence
c. Letters Written by Roman
of Greek Inscriptions
and
Papyri
Magistrates
Since the reasons which prompted Roman magistrates to write and the content of their letters varied from case to case, it is impossible to define a standard model to which the letters cited by Josephus should conform. Only a few standard elements may be found in official Roman letters, and they remain the same during the republican and the imperial eras. They start with the "salutation", following the example of the Hellenistic Greek letters, which begin with the name of the sender in nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative (often the name of the city in the genitive, followed by the specific city magistrates or other governing bodies in the dative, but the order is not rigid), and finally the word of greeting. In the republican period, immediately afterwards we often find the formula valetudinis (ei eppcooGe, ei) dv e^oi), ordinarily expanded to include a reference to the well being of the army and of its commander. As for content, it appears that the more important topics were the granting of privileges or benefits, the restoration of land, arbitration, and the communication of senatus consulta. Usually the letters ended with eppcooGe. 6
d. Decrees Issued by the Councils of Greek
Cities
Their formal features appear simpler than those found in the Roman senatus consulta. There are no witnesses and only sometimes do we find the name of the magistrate(s) who made the motion. Two parts usually appear. In the first, we find a prescript giving some or all of the items which follow: the name of one or more magistrates; the date; the type of meeting; the proposer and the reasons which prompted the decree, often introduced by the word erceiSfi, "since". Then comes the enactment formula, eSo^ev xfj (touM) a i ™j 5rnicp, or 8e86xGcxi xfj PouArj Kal xcp 8f|[icp, "resolved by the council and the people". It is followed by the decree proper, with its provisions. Cases are also attested in which there is also a kind of title, which appears at the very beginning and states: "Decreed by...". 7
K
8
6
Sherk, RDGE, p. 190. IG XI 4, no. 7 1 2 = RGE no. 9; IG XI 4, no. 7 5 6 = RGE no. 10; IGRR IV, no. 1692 = RGE no. 44; RDGE no. 68 = RGE no. 104. In IGRR IV, no. 2 8 9 = RGE no. 39 the axpaxriyoi are mentioned, without further specification. In RDGE no. 65 = RGE no. 101 VI, the motion was made by the high-priest Apollonios (son) of Menophilos, the Aizanian. See IG XI 4, no. 7 1 2 = RGE no. 9; IG XI 4, no. 7 5 6 = RGE no. 10; IGRR IV, no. 1558 = RGE no. 26; IGRR IV, no. 1692 = RGE no. 4 4 ; SIG no. 7 6 2 = RGE no. 78; RDGE no. 68 = RGE no. 104. In the other cases w e find either only "It has been decreed by the people" (SEG X V I , 1966, no. 255 = RGE no. 22; IGRR IV, no. 2 8 9 = RGE no. 39; SIG II, no. 7 4 2 = RGE no. 61) or, instead of the po\)A,f|, the name of other local deliberative bodies, such as the o i ) v e 8 p i a (IG IV 1, no. 63 = RGE no. 51), the Association of the Greeks in Asia (Aphr. no. 5 = RGE no. 65) or simply 'the Greeks of Asia' (RDGE no. 65 = RGE, no. 101 VI). 7
8
3
3
2
2. Documents
Written
in the Imperial
19
Period
Variations of different kinds are also found. For example, some of the items which usually appear in the prescript may be given not at the beginning but at the end. Other material often given at the end includes any supplementary decision taken after the enactment of the main decree, namely, the names of men elected as envoys. As for the date, it does not always appear and seems not to have had a fixed place: we find it both at the beginning and at the end, but it is missing in many of the decrees appearing in the surviving inscriptions. 9
2. D o c u m e n t s Written in the Imperial Period a. Imperial
Edicts
According to Oliver, there are three kinds of documents emanating from the emperor. The first, chronologically speaking, is the iussum Cdesaris, a pre-imperial institution found in the early years of Augustus, such as the order given by Augustus and Agrippa as consuls in the Leyden inscription from Kyme (RDGE no. 6 1 ) . As the imperial service developed and experience accumulated, the emperors gave new governors written instructions (mandata) on how to handle situations in the provinces. These mandata by their very nature were seldom engraved. Much more common was the proclamation of an edict. The proclamation seems to have been issued in the old form of republican magistrate's edicts, which began with dicit, "proclaims", or, in the case of a board, dicunt. The present tense shows that edicts began in the republic as proclamations. They were read aloud by the magistrate in person or in his presence by a herald. Sometimes we also find in the edicts the order of publication. Augustus often used written proclamations in edict form as a way of communicating with provincials. These edicts were essentially open letters to whom it may concern, in either epistolary or edict form according to the intended recipients, whether definite or less clearly defined as a g r o u p . In the text of imperial edicts, Margareta Benner distinguishes five parts. The first is the exordium, or arenga, or proemium, which is a general introduction that aims at producing benevolence and interest in the addressee. The second is the notificatio, or promulgatio: a publishing phrase which in one form or another expresses the meaning: "I make known that". The third 1 0
11
12
9
IG XI 4, no. 7 1 2 = RGE no. 9; IG XI 4, no. 7 5 6 = RGE no. 10; IGRR IV, no. 2 8 9 = RGE no. 39; IGRR IV, no. 1692 = RGE no. 44; RDGE no. 65 = RGE no. 101 VI. For the difference between edictum and iussum, see Oliver, GC, p. 18. See Benner, The Emperor Says (supra, note 3), pp. 2 5 - 2 6 . Oliver, GC, pp. 1 8 - 2 1 . S e e also F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977, p. 2 5 3 . 1 0
1 1
1 2
20
/. The Evidence
of Greek Inscriptions
and
Papyri
is the narratio, or expositio, that is, a relation of the facts which have caused the enactment. Then comes the dispositio, the central part of the document, expressing the decision. It is closely connected with the narratio, with which its relatioa is one of consequence or summing up. The verb expressing order is iubeo, or placet. At the end we find the sanctio and corroboratio — end clauses, aimed at bringing about observance of the enactment. 13
b. Edicts Issued by Roman
Prefects
From the work of Katzoff we learn that the external characteristics of the edicts are remarkably uniform. The prescript is standard — 6 5eiva A,eyei, "so and so says", translating the Latin dicit. At first only the name was given, with no titles. Only from 89 CE on, in Egypt we find that the name was followed by the title "prefect of Egypt", and from 287 AD on, an honorific title 8iaor||Li6xaxo(; or TiauTtpoxaxoc; was added. During the first and second centuries the name was given as the full tria nomina. The body of the edict follows immediately, with no indication of any addressee. An edict normally treats a single subject, or closely related subjects. The substantial part of the edict is usually couched in a correct style avoiding rhetorical affectation. The language is forceful and authoritative, abounding in verbs of commands such as KEJIEUCO, £7UK£A,et>oum, 7capayy£AAa>, 7 t p o x p £ 7 c o u a i , (3ouA,ouai, d7r,ayop£i)co, Siayopeuco, £7ti T i d a i KCOAUCO. We find third person imperatives and, particularly in the clauses relating penalties, future indicatives. Generally the body of the edict concludes with a threat of a severe penalty for violation of the provisions. The edict ends abruptly with no word of greeting. The date is given at the end. All this, in particular the opening and closing conventions, sets the edict off from the letter, £7ito"xoA,f|, a prefectural order sent to some particular lower official. In the letters, the prefect's name is usually given less formally, without the praenomen, the addressee is named, and a greeting, %aipeiv, is added. At the end, too, we generally find a greeting, such as eppcooo. That the difference between the letter and the edicts was a conscious one appears from the distinction drawn between them in the covering letter to P.Oxy. XII, no. 1408, 11. 12-14, where we read: "I have already in a previous letter (ypdu|iaxa) ordered you... and now I wish to confirm my decision with an edict (8idxayua)". Cases are however also attested the nature of which is not clear. One of them is BGU IV, no. 1199, written in Egypt in 4 B C E . 1 4
1 3
Benner, The Emperor Says (supra, note 3), pp. 1 7 - 1 8 . R. Katzoff, "Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: the Role of the Prefect", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 8 1 0 , note 7, and pp. 8 2 0 - 8 2 1 . On the edicts issued by Roman governors in the provinces in A u g u s t u s ' days, see A. Guarino, "La formazione dell'editto perpetuo", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 77. 1 4
2. Documents
Written
in the Imperial
21
Period
With regard to all these documents, in most cases the English translation is that given by their editors, namely, Sherk in RGE, Reynolds in Aphrodisias and Rome, Oliver in GC. When texts are cited from RGE, square brackets [ ] enclose letters or words that no longer stand in the text as it survives, but have been restored by modern scholars, and italics appearing in the texts indicate that only a part of the original word is extant in the document. 15
•5 See RGE, p. XVIII.
II. The Greek and Roman Documents Dealing with the Jewish Rights Quoted by Josephus Introduction The documents presented below have been chosen because they mention the rights enjoyed by the Jews in the Roman world. All of them were written in the first century BCE and in the first century CE. Those documents have obviously been excluded which were written in Hellenistic times, and those which do not deal with Jewish rights. Such is, for example, the alliance preserved in Ant. XIV, 145-148, in spite of the fact that Josephus links it with Caesar's permission to Hyrcanus to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This is seemingly another of Josephus' mistakes, if Stern is correct in dating the document to the time of Hyrcanus I. Another document written in Hellenistic times is apparently that preserved in Ant. XIV, 247-255, which, too — in spite of the place where it is cited — concerns Hyrcanus I and not Hyrcanus II. Whether the Gaius Fannius who writes to the magistrates of Cos (Ant. XIV, 233) must be identified with the magistrate living in the first century BCE and not in the second century BCE is doubtful; and in any case the document does not deal with Jewish rights, but with the safe return of the Jewish envoys from Rome to Judaea. 1
2
Texts of doubtful relevance, such as Antony's letters and alleged decree concerning the restitution of territories and the release of enslaved Jewish captives (Ant. XIV, 306-322), and Claudius' decisions regarding the vestments of the High Priest (Ant. XX, 11-14) have been excluded too, since they do not deal with Jewish rights proper. As for the order in which the documents are presented, the first possibility I thought of was to group them according to the different historical periods 1
M. Stern, "The Relations between Judaea and R o m e during the Rule of John Hyrcanus" (Hebr.), Zion, 2 6 , 1961, pp. 3 - 6 ; idem, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980, p. 3 7 3 . See Stern, "The Relations" (supra, note 1), pp. 1 2 - 1 7 ; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 1A, 1984, p. I l l , and M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Hebr.), ed. D.R. Schwartz, Jerusalem 1995, p. 7 7 , note 17. 2
23
Introduction
(republican and imperial) in which they were written and the genre to which they belong, that is: decrees issued by Roman magistrates, senatus consulta, letters, decrees issued by the councils of Greek cities, and edicts issued by Roman emperors and prefects. Such a presentation would facilitate the comparison with similar documents preserved in inscriptions and papyri, but the reader has to know in advance to which group the document in which he is interested belongs. Practical reasons have therefore convinced me to abandon the first approach, and to present the documents in the same order in which they appear in the Antiquities. As for the form to give to their examination, Tcherikover-Fuks-Stern's CP J, Stern's GLAJJ and Reynolds' Aphrodisias offer a line-to-line commentary, while Sherk's RDGE, Oliver's GC and Boffo's Iscrizioni present, after the text, a general historical commentary. In an attempt to combine the benefits of both systems, I have chosen a third one, following the example of Welles' Royal Correspondence, where we find both of them. As Reynolds does, I have included the notes in the text for the convenience of the reader, and each document is preceded by a bibliography where all the items are cited in full, so that the reader interested in one single document does not have the trouble of searching for complete references. Unlike the general bibliography at the end of the work, which is arranged alphabetically, these particular bibliographies preceding the documents follow a chronological order, which may give an idea of the development of the relevant research during the years. The documents are the main object of examination, but also Josephus' remarks and introductions to the documents quoted may be of interest. They testify about Josephus' interests, purposes, methods of work, attention (or lack of it) paid to the content of the documents themselves, the possible existence (or non-existence) of other additional sources and so on. That is why Josephus' own words, too, have been cited and commented on, following the order in which they appear in the Antiquities. The modern works cited while dealing with Josephus' introductions are quoted in full in the bibliography which appears before the subsequent document. With a few exceptions, the Greek text is that given by Marcus, which itself is based on Niese's edition. Often the reading of the Latin version is preferred when it differs from that of the Greek manuscripts. Made in the sixth century under Cassiodorus' direction, the Latin version of the Antiquities is extremely important for the reconstruction of the text, being at least five or six centuries older than the earliest extant Greek manuscript. Almost a century has elapsed, however, since Niese has completed his work, and we have now some new material, which was not available in Niese's time. Already more than ten years ago, Feldmann quoted a papyrus from the late third century 3
3
See L.H. Feldman, Josephus
and Modern
Scholarship,
N e w York 1984, pp. 2 6 , 4 3 , 4 6 .
24
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
CE, Papyrus Graeca Vindobonensis 29810, which includes Bell. II, 576-579 and 582-594. This papyrus agrees now with one group of manuscripts (PAM) and now with another (VRC), therefore showing "that it is dangerous to rely excessively, as did Niese, on the PAM group". Other similar cases probably exist and should be taken into account, since they may enable us to establish new readings, sometimes indispensable for the understanding of obscure passages (most of them appearing in document no. 5). A new edition of the text of the Antiquities is surely a desideratum. As I have stated in the preface, this is only a first step, and more work is expected in the field. I must also apologize for the fact that scholars' views are presented only where they seemed relevant. Due to the immense bibliography, a full survey would have taken the form of a history of scholarly views on the documents from Krebs to our days, which would have taken twice the size of the present work and often break the connection between the subjects emerging from the texts themselves. The English translation given to the documents is that offered by Marcus, Wikgren and by Feldman, changed in places. 4
5
4
Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (supra, note 3), p. 25. Both the Greek texts and their translations are reprinted by permission of the publishers and the Loeb Classical Library from Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, V o l u m e s X I V , X V I , X I X , translated by R. Marcus, Allen Wikgren and L.H. Feldman, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943, 1963, 1965. 5
Ant. X I V , 1 8 5 - 1 8 9 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
185
(x. 1) O 5e Kaioap £?i9cbv eiq 'Ptofinv
EXOIUXX;
f)V 7t?L£lV £7t' 'A(()piKf|(;, 7T0?l£UT|OC0V XKimCOVl
186
187
188
189
Kai
Kdxcovi, fte|Li\|/a<; 8' TpKavoc; Tupoq avxov rcapeK&Xei p£|3aic6oao9ai xf]v 7tp6<; auxov (jnAiav Kai ouujLiaxiav. £8o^£ 8' dvayKalov £ i v a i urn 7 t d o a < ; £ K 0 £ G 0 a i xdq Y£y£vr|U£va(; Pcoumon; Kai xoic; a\>xoKpdxopaiv avxcov xiudq Kai cruu|iaxia<; 7tp6<; xo &9vo<; f)|icov, tva |if] A,av9dvrj xovq aXXovq anavxaq, dxi Kai oi xf\q 'Aoiac; Kai oi xfjq Eupc67rr|<; fJaoiAeic; 8id orcouSfic; £o%ov fi|id<;, xr\v x£ dv8p£iav f)|icov Kai xf]v 7iiaxiv dYa7rnoavx£<;. enei 8E noXkol 8id xrjv 7tpd<; fi|iaq SuouevEiav drcioxouoi xoic, i)n6 riepacov Kai MaKeSovcov dvaY£YPCiuu,£voi(; 7C£pi r\[i(bv xcp ufi Kai xaDxa rcavxaxoi) un8' £v xoiq 8nuooioi(; d 7 t o K £ i o 9 a i XOTCOK;, aXXa 7iap' f]uTv x£ aijxoii; Kai xioiv dA,A,oi<; xcov fkxppdpcov, Tcpd<; 8E xd ijjio Tcoumcov 8oYuma OUK eoxiv dvx£ur,£iv £v XE yap 8r|uoaioi<; dvaKEixai xonoic, xcovrc6A,ecovKai exi vuv ev xco Ka7T£xcoX,icp xaXKctic, cxr\Xaiq eyy£ypa7cxai • oi) |i.f|v aXXa Kai K a i o a p 'lovkwq xolq ev 'AA,£^av8peia 'IcuSaioic; noir\aaq xaAxfjv axf|A,nv ESTIAXOOEV OXI 'AA,£^av8p£Cov TtoAIxai e i o i v , E K xouxcov 7 t o i f | o o u m Kai xr\v OTIOSEI^IV. rcapa9f|ooum 8E xd ye\6\ieva vno xe xfjq OUYKATIXOV SoYfiaxa Kai 'IouAlov Kaioapoq npoq xe TpKavov Kai xo e9vo<; r||icov.
Translation Caesar on arriving at Rome was ready to sail for Africa to make war on Scipio and Cato, when Hyrcanus sent to him with the request that he should confirm the friendship and alliance with him. And here it seems to me necessary to make public all the honors given our people and the alliances made with them by the Romans and their autocrats in order that all the others may not fail to recognize that both the kings of Asia and of Europe have
26
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
held us in esteem and have admired our bravery and loyalty. Since many persons, however, out of enmity to us refuse to believe what has been written about us by Persians and Macedonians because these writings are not found everywhere and are not deposited even in public places but are found only among us and some other foreign peoples, while against the decrees of the Romans nothing can be said — for they are kept in the public places of the cities and are still to be found engraved on bronze tablets in the Capitol; and what is more, Julius Caesar made a bronze tablet for the Jews in Alexandria, declaring that they were citizens of Alexandria — from these same documents I will furnish proof of my statements. Accordingly I will now cite the decrees passed by the senate and by Julius Caesar concerning Hyrcanus and our people.
Commentary Faced with the problem of inserting the documents in his narrative, Josephus decided to scatter them in the Antiquities, inserting them according to the historical period in which they had been written. Those dealing with Caesar's decision about Hyrcanus II are therefore quoted while dealing with the period in which Hyrcanus II lived. First of all, Josephus presents a kind of historical background. It was the late summer of the year 47 BCE. In Judaea, after the episode of the trial to Herod, there was a show of strength on the part of Herod, and according to Josephus only the intervention of his father and brother helped avoiding an armed clash. The focus is then shifted to Rome, where Caesar arrived in October of 47, after the completion of his Egyptian campaign and the settlement of eastern affairs. In Rome, Caesar found Jewish envoys sent by Hyrcanus waiting for him in order to have confirmed "the friendship and alliance with him". Judeich interprets this expression as referring to the previous alliances stipulated in Hasmonean times, but the "friendship and alliance" may be more plausibly identified with that mentioned in document no. 1. Hyrcanus knew that the high authority in republican Rome was the senate, and that, in order to be legally binding, the decrees issued by Roman magistrates had to be confirmed by the senate. And he was correct. We have a conspicuous number of cases in which envoys of foreign countries came to Rome and requested the Roman senate to confirm decrees conferring rights and privileges which had previously been issued by Roman magistrates. 1
2
Then Josephus presents to his readers the reasons why he chooses to quote the documents verbatim. We do not have to look between the lines. Josephus openly admits that his purposes are overtly apologetic. Half of his 1
Judeich, Caesar
2
S e e b e l o w , pp. 6 3 - 6 4 .
im Orient,
p. 128.
Ant. XIV, 185-189.
Josephus'
Introductory
Comments
27
introduction to the documents is taken up by his defense of the Jewish people, which was probably meant to reach different audiences. One of the reasons why he quotes the texts themselves is the fact that it is impossible not to believe them, "for they are kept in the public places of the cities and are still to be found engraved on bronze tablets in the Capitol" (par. 188). This raises the question whether Josephus himself consulted the bronze tablets in the Capitol — a possibility which has been suggested in modern research, in spite of the fact that this is not exactly what Josephus says. He merely recalls the fact that official documents were publicly exposed in Rome, and that anyone could consult them if he wished. Josephus further observes: "and what is more, Julius Caesar made a bronze tablet for the Jews in Alexandria, declaring that they were 'A?i8^av8p£(ov rcoAIxai" (par. 188). (The same notion concerning a bronze tablet concerning Jewish rights made by Kaioap 6 ueyac; also appears in C. Ap. II, 37). The existence of a bronze tablet "made by Caesar", dealing with the Alexandrian Jews, is a matter of controversy in modern research. It is accepted as historical fact by Mendelssohn, and by Schiirer, who observes that "thanks to Caesar's benevolence, the Jews of Alexandria were protected in the exercise of their citizenship". Kasher stresses that for several generations the Ptolemaic kingdom had been under Roman influence and protection, even before the official conquest by Augustus, and that no political matter worthy of the pame was dealt with in the absence of Roman intervention. Moreover, a parallel to Caesar's grants to the Alexandrian Jews is constituted by the rights later bestowed by Caesar upon Hyrcanus II. The historical value of Josephus' statement, however, has often been challenged by modern historians, and not without reason, because as Prof. Katzoff was kind enough to point out to me, Egypt was not yet a Roman possession in Caesar's time, and this means that Caesar could not have made any decision concerning Alexandrian Jews. Scholars writing before Mendelssohn's times already suspected the historical value of this passage of Josephus. Following Willrich, Reinach suggests that the name of Caesar might stand here for that of Augustus. Since the official name of Augustus was Julius Caesar till the year 42 B C E , Josephus could have misunderstood the meaning of the name. Reinach's view is shared by Tcherikover and by Smallwood. In fact, Augustus did grant rights to the 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
3
S e e above, pp. 5 - 6 . On the interpretations of this statement in modern research, see below, pp. 3 9 4 - 3 9 9 . "Senati Consulta", p. 190. Geschichte, I, p. 348. Kasher, The Jews, p. 17. S e e Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 191. 9 "L'empereur Claude et les Juifs", REJ, 7 8 - 7 9 , 1924, p. 123. 10 MRR, II, p. 358. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, pp. 3 2 4 , 5 1 4 , note 81; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 2 3 3 , note 5 3 . 4
5
6
7
8
1 1
28
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Alexandrian Jews, as we learn not only from Philo, Leg. 159 and 291, but also from a papyrus dealing with "the Alexandrian question", where Claudius states: "I allow them (the Jews) to keep their own ways, as they did in the time of the god Augustus..." (CPJ II, no. 153, col. I, 1. 87). It is also surely possible that these rights were engraved by the Jews on bronze tablets. In many centres of the Greek East, surviving specimens and Greek inscriptions attest to the existence of bronze tablets which dealt not only with the alliances, but also with the privileges bestowed upon provincials. As for the content of these rights, however, Josephus' statement that Katcap proclaimed that the Jews were 'A?i8^av8pecov 7toAIxai (par. 188) raises the unanimous scepticism of modern historians. Surely it can not be assumed that the Jews living in Alexandria were, all of them, citizens of the Greek noXiq. This, however, does not automatically mean that Josephus is consciously lying. Philo, too, states: SEIKVUVXCCI; (bq eouev 'AXe^avdpeiq. Honigman comments: "Si on prend la phrase dans un sens juridique, elle est tout simplement fausse. On hesite pourtant a attribuer a Philon un mensonge aussi grossier. La seule issue possible est de conclure que Philon donne au mot Alexandrin une autre acception que le sens juridique patent.... Le mot a un sens culturel et non juridique". Marcus holds that the members of a Jewish jroHxe\)|ia within the Hellenistic noXiq may also have been called TcoAJxca, and this view is shared by Kasher, and by Smallwood, who relies on OGIS no. 592, which mentions the rcoAIxai of the Caunian 7uoA,ixe\)u,a at S i d o n . Completely different, however, is the interpretation offered by Luderitz, who translates the same passage: "The politeuma of the Caunians to ... their fellow-citizens" and explains: "The plural auxcov must refer to the communities of citizens from Caunus...; so they cannot refer to the respective politeumata as institutions — the deceased were 'their fellow-citizens' (of the other citizens living in Sidon and belonging to the politeuma) and not 'its citizens' (of the politeuma). Thus, the fact that the deceased are here called rcoAIxai can easily be understood as referring to them as fellow-citizens of Caunus and Termessus". 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1 2
S e e below, pp. 3 8 5 - 3 8 6 . S e e A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1964, p. 3 5 6 , notes 119-120. S e e b e l o w , pp. 2 9 8 , 3 1 6 - 3 1 7 . S y l v i e Honigman, "Philon, Flavius Josephe, et la citoyennete alexandrine: vers une utopie politique", JJS, 4 8 , 1997, pp. 8 0 - 8 1 . Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 8 7 , note f. The Jews, p. 356. S m a l l w o o d , The Jews, p. 2 3 0 , note 4 1 . G. Luderitz, "What is the politeuma?", Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. J.W. van Henten, P.W. van der Horst, L e i d e n - N e w York-Koln 1994, pp. 1 9 3 - 4 . On the meaning of 1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
Ant. XIV, 185-189.
Josephus'
Introductory
Comments
29
It is not impossible that the term may have here a quite generic significance simply meaning "inhabitants", as we find in Lk XV: 15, where noXixr\q means "a citizen, of one who lives in or comes from a city or country (xf\q %(bpaq e K e i v r n ; ) " . In this last sense, noXixr\q is clearly unrelated to the Greek p o l i s . Tajra observes: "In Scripture and in the Hellenistic writers... the word [7ioA
21
22
u
23
the term jtoAlTcu, see also C. Zuckermann, "Hellenistic Politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration", SCI, 8/9, 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 8 8 , p. 175, note 6. S e e W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, trans., ed. W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, Cambridge 1957, s.v. noXixr\q, p. 6 9 3 . In H.G. Liddell's and R. Scott's Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement, Oxford 1996, p. 2 5 4 , too, the term noXivr\q is translated "city-dweller". H.W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, Tubingen 1989, pp. 7 9 - 8 0 . M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, London 1991, p. 6. S e e also p. 9 9 , note 4 8 . 2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
30
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
decree issued by the council of Sardis, where we find oi KctxoiKowret; ev xfj KoA,ei Iou8aioi rcoAlxai (document no. 20,1. 3). We may notice too that here Josephus does not say that the Jews were TioXixai 'A?ie^av5poi but rcoAIxai 'AA,8^av8p8(ov. An even broader meaning of the word 7toA,ixai is attested in Dolabella's letter to the Greek magistrates of Ephesus, where he mentions the Jewish rcoHxai of the high Priest Hyrcanus, namely, his "co-religionists, co-nationals". Concerning this last meaning, Luderitz observes that in this sense — 'fellow-citizens of the city of origin' — the term Kok\vs\c, is also used for members of a club (collegium) formed by the citizens of Nysa in Rome. 24
25
26
It is therefore not impossible that Josephus played (consciously or not, we cannot know) with the different meanings of the term, in order to give his readers the impression that the Jews — this was the main point — were accorded a favorable position by the Roman authorities. It was, according to Honigman, "un discours de propagande". Concerning the bronze tablet of Alexandria, Josephus may not have known much, as we may infer from the fact that he never says anything about its content. Willrich observes that if the text of this tablet had been in front of him, Josephus would have been pleased and proud to reproduce i t . Moreover, after stating that Caesar declared that the Jews "were citizens of Alexandria", Josephus goes on to write that "from these same documents" he will furnish proof of his statements. But in the whole section of Caesar's decrees and fragments of decrees concerning the Jews, no notion of "citizenship" appears. Actually, no special decree is mentioned concerning Alexandrian Jews in Caesar's days. 27
28
This discrepancy between this statement of Josephus and what actually appears in the documents he quotes afterwards is extremely meaningful. On one hand, it constitutes a point in favor of authenticity. Had he forged his decrees, Josephus could easily have also forged a decree mentioning the fact that the Jews were citizens at Alexandria. He could also have inserted
2 4
On the difference between these two expressions, see L. Troiani, "The n o X i x e i a of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, p. 14. S e e b e l o w , document no. 9, commentary to 1. 7. "What is the politeuma?", pp. 194—5. In this connection it is perhaps useful to recall that the meaning of the term noXix£.v\x.a, too, was rather broad, being used both as a technical term, to indicate a political body which is part of the administrative organization of a Greek polis, and also private, voluntary associations, such as the "politeuma of the w o m e n " near Stratonicaea in Caria, or that of the supreme goddess Sachypsis at Philadelphia in the Faiyum: see Luderitz, "What is the politeuma?", pp. 1 8 3 - 2 2 5 . Honigman, "Philon, Flavius Josephe, et la citoyennete alexandrine" (supra, note 15), pp. 67, 83. H. Willrich, Urkundenfalschung in der hellenistisch-judischen Literatur, Gottingen 1924, p. 5. 2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
1. Ant. XIV,
190-195
31
this notion in an authentic decree. On the other hand, this discrepancy is instructive concerning the way in which Josephus worked. It means that he was not always in full control of the material which he quotes, and did not remember exactly what was or was not written in the documents. In fact, the rights granted to the Alexandrian Jews are dealt with in the documents he quotes, but in an edict issued not by Caesar but by Claudius. Perhaps Josephus had no special interest in the details of the content of the documents themselves, and it did not matter much whether the bronze tablet concerning Alexandrian Jews had been made at the time of Julius Caesar or at that of Augustus. What did matter was that such a tablet did exist — another proof of the importance of the Jews in the Roman world.
1. Ant. X I V , 1 9 0 - 1 9 5 S e c o n d half of June 4 7 B C E
Letter written by Julius Caesar to the magistrates, council and people of Sidon. It accompanies an alleged decree issued by Caesar concerning Hyrcanus II and the Jews. Bibliography J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro Iudaeis facta e losepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768, pp. 1 8 5 - 2 2 5 ; I. Goldschmidt, De ludaeorum apud Romanos Condicione, Halis Saxonae 1866, p. 14; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 7 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte im Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, pp. 178-183, 2 1 6 - 2 2 6 , 3 0 2 - 3 0 6 ; W. Judeich, Caesar im Orient, Leipzig 1885, pp. 122, 129, 138; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 97; A. Biichler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten und die romischen Steuern in den Erlassen Caesars", Festschrift zum Achtzigsten Geburstage Moritz Steinschneider's, Leipzig 1896, pp. 9 2 - 9 9 = Studies in Jewish History: the Adolf Biichler Memorial Volume, ed. I. Brodie, J. Rabbinowitz, London 1956, pp. 1-23; E. Schiirer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I, Leipzig 1901, pp. 3 4 4 - 3 4 5 ; H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, III, 1, Leipzig 1905, pp. 174-175; T. M o m m s e n , Romische Geschichte, V, Berlin 1 9 0 9 , p. 5 0 1 ; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, p. 161; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 139; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonaex, Leipzig 1914, pp. 4 9 - 5 4 ; T. Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, III, N e w York 1967 (first ed. 1923), p. 507; A . Momigliano, "Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano", ASNP, ser. I, 3, 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 13=195, 18=200; H. Vogelstein, Rome, Philadelphia 1940, p. 26; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 90; A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Hebr.), 6
32
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Jerusalem 1964, p. 86; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, pp. 2 7 1 - 2 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980, p. 375; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 , 1 3 5 - 6 ; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1, 1979, pp. 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 ; A.M. Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 6 8 4 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 172, 196; D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community", SCI, 7, 1983/4, p. 4 8 , note 60; H. Castritius, "Die Haltung R o m s gegeniiber den Juden in der ausgehenden Republik und in der Prinzipatszeit", in: Judentum und Antisemitismus von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, eds. T. Klein, V. Losemann, G. Mai, Dusseldorf 1984, pp. 2 2 - 2 3 ; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 117; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Tubingen 1985, pp. 1 2 - 1 8 ; I. Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1993, p. 8; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Caesar and Jewish Law", RB, 102, 1995, pp. 2 8 - 3 7 ; eadem, "Seleukos of Rhosos and the Jews", JSJ, 2 6 , 1995, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 ; M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Hebr.), ed. D.R. Schwartz, Jerusalem 1995, pp. 2 3 5 - 2 3 8 ; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Caesar's Decrees in the Antiquities: Josephus' Forgeries or Authentic Roman Senatus ConsultaT', Athenaeum, 84, 1996, pp. 7 3 - 7 6 ; eadem, "Ant. XIV, 1 8 5 - 2 6 7 : a Problem of Authenticity", in: CSS, pp. 1 9 7 - 1 9 9 ; A . M . Rabello, "Civil Justice in Palestine from 6 3 B C E to 7 0 CE", in: CSS, p. 2 9 6 ; J.E. Bernard, "Transferts historiographique: Josephe, Cesar et les privileges juifs", Bulletin du Centre de recherche frangais de Jerusalem, 2, 1998, p. 17.
190
191
192
(x. 2) Tdioq 'IouTuo^ Kaioap auxoKpdxcop Kai dpxi£pe\j<;, SiKxdxcop xo Seuxepov Zi5covicov dpXouoi poD^fj 8r|[j.G) xaipeiv. e i eppoooGe e\j dv exoi, Kaycb 8e eppouai o\)v xco oxpaxo7ie5cp. xfjq yevo|i8vri<; dvaypa^fjc; ev xfj 5eA/xcp 7tpo<; TpKavov uiov 'AA,e^dv5pot>, dpxiepea Kai eGvdpxrrv 'Iou8atcov, 7U£7co|i(|)a -uuiv xo dvxiypacpov, iv' ev xoi<; 8r|uooioi<; ujitov dvaKerrxai ypdujiaoiv. |k>t>ta)um 8e Kai eA.A,r|vioxi Kai pa>u,a'ioxi ev 8eA,xcp xaA,Kfj xofjxo dvaxeGfjvai. eoxiv 8fi xofjxo- 'Iot)?iioc; Kaioap amoKpdxcop Kai dpxiepetx;, SiKxdxcop xo 8et>xepov, liexd o-U|x(3oD?iioD yv(6ur|<; e7ceKpiva. ercei 'YpKav6<; 'AA,e£dv8poi) 'IoDSaux; Kai vvv Kai ev xoic; euTtpooGev xpovoic; ev xe eipfivrj Kai rcoTieuu) t c i o x i v xe Kai oTCOuSfiv 7 t e p i xd f]|j,exepa 7cpdy|iaxa eve8ei10. 11.
8e 8r| F L A M V . 5f| P. 8 e coni. Niese. aoTOKpdtcop t o 5e\)tet)pov Kai d p / i e p e t x ; codd. imperator pontifex secundo dictator Lat. unde a-uxoKpaxcop Kai apxiepevc, 8iKxdxcop xo Seijxepov restituit Niese. 1 5 - 1 6 . eTteSei^axo P.
5
10
15
/. Ant. XIV,
193
194
195
33
190-195
£,axo, (he, a\)icp 7r.oA,A,oi ue|iapx\)pr|Kaoiv ceOxoKpdxopeq, Kai ev xco Eyyioxa ev 'AA,e^av5peia 7to?i£u.cp jiexd %i?iicov 7ievxaKooicov axpaxicoxcov TJKE O\>U\XCLXOC,, Kai npdq Mi0pi8dxr|v drcooxaXei*; vri e.[iOV 7idvxa(;dv8peiaxo\)c;evxd^£ii)jr£pePa>.e, 8idxauxa<; xd<; aixia<; TpKavov 'A^E^dvSpou Kai xd xEKva avxofj EBvdpxaq 'Io\)8aicov e l v a i pot>A,o|j.ai, ap%lepcixruvriv XE 'IouSaicov 8id navxbq E%EIV Kaxd xd jcdxpia £0r|, e l v a i XE a\)xov Kai xoix; 7r.ai8ac; ai)xoi) OVVL\I6I%O\)C, r\\iiv, EXI XE Kai EV xoiq Kax' dvSpa (j)i?ioi(; dpvGuEiaGai, o o a XE Kaxd xoiiq ISIODC; amcov vouotx; Eoxiv dpxiEpaxiKa r\ <|)iA,dv9pa>7ta, xavxa KE^EIJCO KaxE^Eiv a\)xov Kai xd xEKva auxcO' dv 8E u£xa^\) y£vr|xai xiq C^xi^aiq Trepi xfjc; 'Io\)8aicov dyeoyfje;, dpEOKEi \ioi Kpiaiv yiv£a0ai 7 i a p ' avxoiq. 7iapax£i|Liaaiav 8E f| xpfiuaxa 7cpdao£G0ai o\) 8oKiu.d^co.'
20
25
30
2 2 . PoijA.Ofiai o m . P A M .
Translation Gaius Julius Caesar, Imperator and Pontifex Maximus, Dictator for the second time, to the magistrates, council and people of Sidon, greeting. If you are in good health, it is well; I also and the army are in good health. I am sending you a copy of the decree, inscribed on a tablet, concerning Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, in order that it may be deposited among your public records. It is my wish that this be set up on a bronze tablet in both Greek and Latin. It reads as follows. I, Julius Caesar, Imperator and Pontifex Maximus, Dictator for the second time, have decided as follows with the advice of my advisory council. Whereas the Jew Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, both now and in past, in time of peace as well as in war, has shown loyalty and zeal toward our affairs, as many commanders have testified on his behalf, and in the recent Alexandrian war has come as an ally with fifteen hundred soldiers, and being sent by me to Mithridates, surpassed in bravery all those in the ranks, for these reasons it is my wish that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and his children shall be ethnarchs of the Jews and shall hold the office of high priest of the Jews for all time in accordance with their national customs, and that he and his sons shall be our allies and also be numbered among our particular friends; and whatever high-priestly prerogatives or privileges exist in accordance with their laws, these he and his children shall possess by my command. And if, during this period, any question shall arise concerning the Jews' manner of life, it is my pleasure
34
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
that they shall have the decision. I do not approve that winter-quartering or money shall be exacted from them.
Commentary I. After his victory at Pharsalus in 48 BCE, probably late in October, Caesar was named 'Dictator for a second time' for an entire year. This means that he bore this title from October 48 to October 47 (see A.E. Raubitschek, "Epigraphical Notes on Julius Caesar", JRS, 44, 1954, p. 70). Since our document does not mention the title "consul" (which Caesar had in 48, but not in 47), we may conclude that the letter was written in the year 47 BCE. In this year, toward the end of March, Caesar completed his campaign in Alexandria, recovered and began his reorganization of the East, including Asia Minor (June-July), and returned to Italy at the end of September. After a short stay, he set out for Africa toward the end of November. See MRR, II, 1952, pp. 2 8 4 - 2 8 6 and III, 1986, pp. 106-107. 2 - 3 . EiSwvicov dp^ouai... ^aipeiv. This is the common form of the "salutation" found in Roman official correspondence. It follows the example of the Hellenistic Greek letters, which begin with the name of the sender in nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative, and finally the word of greeting. See Sherk, RDGE, pp. 189-190. On the reasons why the city of Sidon was chosen as recipient of this document, see below, document no. 2, commentary to 1. 9. 3. e i eppcooGe. It is the formula valetudinis, which appears in official Hellenistic correspondence since the middle of the second century BCE. In Roman literature, reference to the well-being of a Roman army as well as of its commander occurs as early as 117 BCE when the Letaens drafted their decree in honour of M. Annius (SIG II, no. 700, 11. 4 2 - 3 ) , but it appears in a Roman official letter for the first time in 62 when Cicero writes si tu exercitusque valetis, bene est to Q.Metellus Celer (Fam. V, 2). In official Roman letters written in Greek, the formula appears beginning in the first half of the first century BCE, in the form e i eppcoaGe, e\j dv e^oi. Whenever a writer employs it, he always puts it after %aipeiv. Ordinarily the formula is expanded to include a reference to the army, which is not found in the royal Greek letters, and seems to have originated with the Romans (see Sherk, RDGE, p. 190). The formula valetudinis is found in other letters written by Caesar, such as that sent to Mytilene and that to Pergamum (RDGE nos. 26, 3
II. 2 - 3 ; 54,1. 2). It appears also in letters written by Octavian (RDGE nos. 28, 39-35 BCE, 11. 9-12; 58, 4 2 - 3 0 BCE, 11. 4 - 5 ; 60 A, 31 BCE, 11. 4 - 6 ; Aphr. nos. 6, 39 or 38 BCE, 11. 11-14; 12, 39 or 38 BCE, 11. 2 - 3 ; Ann.Ep. 1993, no. 1461, 29 BCE, 11. 8-9). 5. xfjc; yevouevric; dvcrypa^fjc; ev too 8eA/cq). For parallels, see L. Robert,
1. Ant. XIV,
190-195
35
"Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias", AC, 36, 1966, p. 405. On wooden tablets on which decrees were inscribed, see below, pp. 130-131. 5. Hyrcanus II (103-30 BCE) was the elder son of Alexander Yannai and Salome Alexandra. See Schurer, The History, I, pp. 2 6 7 - 2 8 0 and Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 16-53. The title of ethnarch is given by Caesar to Hyrcanus in the alleged decree on 1. 22. 7. TO dvxiypa(|)ov. Since the middle of the second century BCE, copies of the decrees issued both by Roman magistrates and by the Roman senate were often sent to different cities and countries for information. An example is found in the letter written by the praetor Cornelius Blasio to the people of Corcyra, in order to Communicate to them some information about Ambrakia and Athamania (RDGE no. 4, 11. 10, written between 175 and 160 BCE). Sometimes the Romans requested the interested party himself to send a copy of the documents to other cities, as we find in the letter of Octavian to the city of Rhosos, where he states: "The documents written below were extracted from a stele from the Capitolium in Rome.... And send a copy [of them to] the Boule and People of Tarsus, the Boule and People of Antioch, the Boule and People [of Seleukeia]..." (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, letter I, 11. 5-8, 4 2 - 3 0 BCE). The first copy, of course, was that sent to the interested party. See RDGE, no. 26, 46/45 BCE, col. a; no. 28, 39-35 BCE, 11. 44-47; no. 58, 4 2 - 3 0 BCE, 11. 5-6, and Octavian's letter to Plarasa-Aphrodisias; Aphr. no. 6, 11. 3 2 - 3 3 . On the practice of sending copies of Roman documents to subjects and allies, see M.W. Frederiksen, "The Republican Municipal Laws: Errors and Drafts", JRS, 55, 1965, pp. 184, 191, and Reynolds, Aphr., p. 47. 7-8. iv' ev xoic; 5nux)atoi<;... ypdu|iaaiv. Often the letters written by Roman magistrates which accompanied an alleged decree prescribed that the copy of the decree should be deposited in the archives of the city. The most common is the case of alliances. That with Epidauros, for example, states: "...the decree passed and handed over to the (Roman) treasury and the alliance put up on a bronze plaque on the Capitolium — of (both) these (documents) copies have been delivered by him to our public archives..." (IG IV 1, no. 63 = RGE no. 51, 112/111 BCE, 11. 1-9). But we also find other documents of different kinds. Such is the letter which a Roman official sent to several cities of the province of Asia, where he orders them "...that they may deposit (a copy of this letter) in the archives of the Nomophylakia and the Chrematisteria" (RDGE no. 52 = RGE no. 77, 11. 5 3 - 5 4 , 51/50 BCE [?] or c.29 BCE [?]). Two letters sent by Octavian, too, explictly ask the recipients to enter the document into their archives. The first is the letter to the magistrates of Rhosos which states: "[documents which I ask you] to enter into your public archives" (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, Letter I, between 42 and 30 BCE, 11. 5-6). The second is the letter sent to Plarasa-Aphrodisias in the fall of 39 BCE or 38 BCE, where we read: "Copies of the privileges granted to you are affixed below. I wish you to register them in your public 2
36
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
records" (d \)u.a<; po\)A,oum ev xolq 8r||j.oo"ioiq xoig 7iap' \)u.etv ypdu.uaaiv evxd^ai: RDGE no. 28A = RGE no. 87, 11. 4 9 - 5 0 ) . See Frederiksen, "The Republican Municipal Laws" (supra, commentary to 1. 7), pp. 184, 191; L. Robert, "Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias", AC, 36, 1966, p. 405 and Reynolds, Aphr., p. 46. On archives in general, see E. Posner, Archives in the Ancient World, Harvard 1972. 8. The verb PouXoum is often found in Roman official letters and decrees written in the republican age. See RDGE nos. 2, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 38, 57, 58. 8-10. A similar order of publication appears in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensihus, where we read: "[the consuls are to see that...] ...[they have] this decree of the senate [engraved...] on bronze tablets [and set up in the temple of Jupiter], in Rome, on the Capitol; [and to arrange that other] tablets [be displayed] at Aphrodisias in the sanctuary of [Aphrodite] and in the [?market place(s) of the Plarasans and Aphrodisians, ?where they are clearly visible]..." (Aphr. no. 8, 11. 90-93). The engraving of Roman documents in bronze in Latin and in Greek, too, is often attested to in the East. An edict issued by a governor of Asia in 9 BCE states: "I will ordain that the decree, engraved on a stele, be erected in the temple (of Roma and Augustus in Pergamum), preceded by my edict written in both languages" (RDGE no 65 = RGE no. 101, 11. 28-30), and Antony's letter to the magistrates of Tyre quoted by Josephus, which accompanies an alleged decree, states: "I have sent you my edict, and it is my wish (Pov^oum) that you take care to register it in the public tablets in Latin and Greek characters" (Ant. XIV, 319). Bilingual inscriptions are attested in Rome itself. Extant specimens are numerous. To choose but one example, we may cite a decree of the senate concerning the rights bestowed upon three Greek naval captains (RDGE no. 22 = RGE no. 66, 78 BCE), which was found in Rome in 1570 (it is now in the Museo Capitolino) engraved in a bronze tablet. It is written in Latin and is followed by a complete Greek translation. See E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, XVI, 1969, p 1055 and L. Moretti, "La dedica dei Damasceni nell' area sacra di Largo Argentina", Miscellanea greca e romana, 14, 1989, pp. 205-213. On bilingual inscriptions, see also F. Zilken, Inscriptiones Latinae Graecae bilingues, Leipzig 1909 and V. Bassler, Inscriptiones Graecae Latinae bilingues, Diss. Prague 1934 (non vidi). See below, pp. 382-385. 10. eoxiv 8fi xouxo. These words may have been added by Josephus or by his source with the purpose of linking the letter and the following decree. In Greek inscriptions, letters and alleged decrees are usually engraved one after the other without linking words. But not always: in the letter written by Cornelius Blasio to the Ambrakiots and the Athamanians we do find GDYKATIXO'D Soyua x68e eaxiv between the letter and the decree (RDGE no. 4, written between 175 and 160 BCE, 11. 11-12).
1. Ant. XIV,
190-195
37
11. The manuscripts give auKTOKpaxcop TO 8£UT£pov K m dp^iepeix;, which is surely a corruption since in these years a second or a third salutation is not necessarily indicated by a numerical symbol (see below, document no. 5, commentary to 1. 1). The titles which must have appeared in the original text are probably the same as those which appear at the beginning of the letter which precedes it, on 11. 1-2. The Latin, too, gives imperator pontifex secundo dictator. Niese is therefore correct in suggesting reading here onkoKpaTCup Kai dp^iepetx;, SiKTaxcop TO SsuxEpov. Since all the Greek manuscripts give the same reading, it is possible that the corruption already appeared in the archetype of Josephus' text, which makes it possible, though by no means sure, that the document came to Josephus already in a corrupt state (see below, pp. 363-366). < 12. The expression u£xd aujj.(3ot>?tioD YV(6UT|<;, and the similar ones drco u,£xd (XuuPouAiou or E K GUjiPouAiou yv(h\ix\<;, often appear in Greek inscriptions, translating the Latin ex (de) consilii sententia. Advisory boards are often attested to in Roman documents. Krebs observes that they were composed of "legati, tribunique militum, quos imperatores Romani, quoties aliquid deliberandum, decernendum esset, in consilium advocabant" (Decreta Romanorum, p. 217). A council was consulted by the consul L. Calpurnius Piso in 112 BCE, when he was appointed by the senate to investigate and reach a decision about a land dispute between two Cretan cities (RDGE no. 14, 11. 78, 97). And in a letter written by the consuls of the year to the city of Oropos, two councils are mentioned. One, and chronologically the first, is the advisory board of Sulla which allowed him to decide about a gift of land to Oropos, and the second is the advisory council of the consuls Marcus Terentius n. Varro Lucullus and Gaius Cassius, which allowed them to reach a decision about Oropos and the publicans (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 73 BCE, 11. 29, 39, 43, 5 5 - 5 6 ) . Sulla's consilium is also mentioned in the document which preserves the special rights given to Tabae (RDGE no. 17, 1. 9) and to Stratonikeia (RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63, 1. 96, 85 BCE). We also hear of the council of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 89 BCE and that of Lentulus in 49 BCE. See J. Suolahti, "The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus in the Year 49 B.C.", Arktos, 2, 1958, pp. 152-63. In later time, Augustus, too, had his own consilium (RDGE no. 31, 1. 87). See also RDGE nos. 12, 17, 43, 49, 51. 0\)|LIPO\)UO\) YVC6UT|<;,
12. £7I£Kpiva. For parallels in inscriptions written in republican times, see RDGE nos. 11, 1. 19; 15, 1. 63; 58, 1. 72. In particular, Caesar uses this verb also in his grant of asylum to the temple of Artemis at Sardis: [R]d['i]o[<; K a ] i g a p auxoKpaxcop Kai dpxiEpEUc; 8iKxdxa)[p] [X]E 8 i d piou £7T£Kp£tv£v ... (SEG XXXIX, 1989, no. 1290,11. 31-32). 12. The term ETCEI is often found introducing the reasons which prompted a decree. It also appears in Caesar's decrees to Sardis mentioned above (SEG XXXIX, 1989, no. 1290,1. 33).
38
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
13. The importance of former military assistance to the Romans is often stressed in Roman official documents as the reason for bestowing grants on peoples and cities. See for example RDGE nos. 15,1. 47; 20 E, 1. 6 and an edict issued by Octavian and by Antony, where we read: "[Since in former times too the Rhodians, Lycians, Ta]rsians and Laodiceans, and also the Plarasans and Aphrodisians, [always] showed the greatest zeal (a7io\)5r|) [for the empire] ... [when], holding the most noble principles, [? they undertook] every risk on behalf of the respublica and ourselves"... (Aphr. no. 7, 11. 2 - 3 ) . In the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensihus, too, we find: "since it is agreed that the community [of the Plarasans and Aphrodisians has] continuously [..?..] shown the greatest [..?.. and] goodwill [..?..] to the empire of the Roman people from the time when it entered the friendship of the Roman people..." (Aphr. no. 8, 39 BCE, 11. 23-25). Reynolds observes that the decision to renew %apic„ tyiXia and
I. Ant. XIV,
190-195
39
force upon unwilling allies" (Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, II, p. 990). In any case, Hyrcanus and Antipater did not help only Pompey, and by the expression ev xoi<; eujcpoaGev xpovou; Caesar may refer also to the military help which Hyrcanus had given to Gabinius in 55 BCE, about which we learn from Ant. XIV, 98-100: "...Gabinius ... returned to Egypt to restore Ptolemy to his kingdom.... On this campaign, moreover, Gabinius, in accordance with Hyrcanus' instruction to him, was supplied with grain, arms and money by Antipater, who also won over the Jews above Pelusium to his side and made them his allies to act as guards of the entrances to Egypt...". 14. 7uioTtv xe Kai a^ouSf). These two words often appear together in Roman official documents dealing with rights and privileges granted to cities and also to private individuals. See for example Octavian's letter concerning Seleucus (RDGE, no. 58, col. Ill, 11. 83-84). The m a i n ; of the Sardians is also mentioned in Caesar's decree to Sardis, and was possibly originally preceded by euvoia, or by a superlative (SEG XXXIX, 1989, no. 1290,1. 36). See also Aphr. nos. 2b, 11. 6, 10; 3, 11. 37-38; 8, 11. 28, 94. 16-17. The "many commanders" who testified on Hyrcanus' behalf cannot be those who participated in Caesar's Alexandrian campaign, since this latter is mentioned immediately afterwards as a separate event: "and in the recent Alexandrian war has come as an ally...". It is worthwhile noticing that this is confirmed by the Latin version, which, too, distinguishes between two different times when it states: "...studium suum demonstravit cui multi etiam consules testimonium prebent insuper...". We may see here a reference to Gabinius, more probably than to Pompey. See above, commentary to 1. 13. 17-20. The importance of the help given to Caesar emerges also from Ant. XIV, 136, where we learn that Mithridates was helped by Antipater on a difficult moment of his campaign, and "thereupon wrote an account of this to Caesar, declaring that Antipater had been responsible for their victory and also for their safety; and as a result of this, Caesar commended Antipater on that occasion, and, what is more, made use of him for the most dangerous tasks throughout the entire war". It is meaningful that here Josephus, probably following Nicolaus, has Caesar recommend only Antipater's merits, while in our decree the contrary appears, and Hyrcanus' merits are stressed. Independently of the fact whether Hyrcanus himself took part in the campaign (in Ant. XIV, 127 Josephus writes that when Caesar was fighting in Egypt, Antipater proved himself useful to Caesar "under orders of Hyrcanus"), our decree testifies that Caesar considered him as the one responsible for the Jewish military participation. On the other hand, it is very probable that in the decree which Josephus does not quote, by which Caesar bestowed rights on Antipater, it was Antipater who was to be regarded as responsible for the Egyptian victory. See below, pp. 4 7 - 4 9 . On the importance of the Jewish participation in Caesar's Alexandrian war, see A. Kasher, "New Light on the Jewish Part in the Alexandrian War of Julius Caesar" (Hebr.),
40
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
World Union of Jewish Studies Newsletter, 14-15, 1979, pp. 15-23 and idem, The Jews, pp. 13-17. On the Jewish participation in the main battle, see Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, pp. 235-236, note 4. 18. UExd xiAicov 7U£vxaKooia>v axpaxKoxoov. This is exactly half the number attested by Josephus in Bell. I, 187 and in Ant. XIV, 128. In Ant. XIV, 139, too, Josephus states that "Antipater arrived with three thousand heavily-armed Jewish soldiers", while in Ant. XVI, 52 we read: "...it is well not to leave unmentioned the valour of... Antipater, who with two thousand heavily-armed soldiers came to the help of Caesar when he had invaded Egypt...". Josephus was probably unaware of the discrepancy between these passages and our decree; otherwise we would expect an explanation. 19. Mithridates of Pergamum came to Egypt with auxiliary forces in order to assist Caesar. The evidence for his campaign is examined by Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, pp. 4 9 6 - 7 . See p. 497 on the differences between Josephus and Hirtius, Bell.Alex. 27, 5-8 concerning the campaign. 21. Kai xd xeKva a'uxo'O. The appointment to ethnarch was given not only to Hyrcanus but also to his children, in spite of the fact that in fact Hyrcanus had no sons, but only a daughter and from her a grandson, Aristobulus, who was only six years old at that time. We may well doubt, however, whether Caesar was aware of Hyrcanus' family status. The expression was apparently a fixed one, often attested in similar contexts in Roman official documents. See Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars" pp. 225-6. As for the fact that the appointment was given also to Hyrcanus' sons, this does not represent special-consideration for Hyrcanus. In the case of other individuals, rights and privileges were granted not only to them and to their children, but also to their descendants. See RDGE no. 22 = RGE no. 66, 1. 12 and Aphr. no. 8, 11. 3 0 - 3 1 , 5 1 - 5 2 . A case is also attested, in which rights were bestowed upon "him and his parents, his children, his descendants, the wife who [hereafter] will be his..." (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, letter I, 11. 19-20). 22. The Latin version translates this expression: "rectores Iudeorum". 22. Marcus is probably correct in inserting fto'uA.ouai in the text, according to FLV. On the use of this verb in similar contexts, see above, 1. 8. 2 1 - 2 2 . Rosenthal observes that the Roman recognition of the hereditary appointment of the high priests is exceptional, since the task was usually by appointment and for short periods of time ("Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 183). On Caesar's possible motivations, see M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 88. 2 3 - 2 4 . Krebs suggests translating Kaxd xd rcdxpia EGn: "quod patriis moribus receptum est, iisque convenit" (Decreta Romanorum, p. 218). 2 4 - 2 6 . On the real meaning in practice of the titles "high priests", "ethnarchs", "allies" and "particular friends of the Romans", see Momigliano, "Ricerche", pp. 12-18 and Schurer, The History, pp. 2 7 1 - 2 . The title ^iXoq auujia%6<; XE was often granted by the Romans (see for example RDGE nos.
1. Ant. XIV,
190-195
41
1,9, 10 B, 12, 58 and the passage of Livy quoted by Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", pp. 195-196, note 3). Magie observes that the expression amicus et socius was never applied to a socius but was equated with amicus, often appearing as a synonym in the same document. Entrance into the relationship of amicitia was a definite act, called in amicitiam venire. Magie follows Heuss suggesting that "the relationship of amicitia was not based on a treaty, as had been held by Mommsen and Taubler.... Consequently, the amicitia et societas might be formally renounced by the senate, as in the case of Perseus in 172 B.C. and Prusias II of Bithynia in 155 B.C." (D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, Princeton 1950, p. 960, note 76). Mendelssohn writes that we cannot imagine Ijere a greater honor (Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 195), but it appears that in practice the value of this title was apparently only formal. Brunt cites a statement by Sir Ronald Syme according to which amicitia was a weapon of politics, not a sentiment based on congeniality (P.A. Brunt, "Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic", PCPhS, 191, suppl. 1, 1965, p. 1) and Marshall points out that the status amicitia populi Romani did not carry with it judicial and fiscal privileges of a high order, as was maintained by Mommsen, Ferrenbach and Gallet, but had a merely diplomatic or political content. The literary and epigraphic evidence suggests that all individual amici were, on the senate's instruction, entered on a formal roll, that they received permission to set up a commemorative bronze tablet on the Capitol and to offer sacrifice to the Roman state gods, and that they received public hospitality from the Roman state. The right of embassy to the senate should probably be included among their privileges. On the purely formal or diplomatic nature of such honors, see A.J. Marshall, "Friends of the Roman People", AJPh, 89, 1968, pp. 39-55; K.H. Ziegler, "Amicus et socius populi Romani", Labeo, 28, 1982, pp. 61-67; E.S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, I, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1984, p. 47. 2 6 - 2 8 . This is the first instance in which we find mention of the rights pertaining to the Jewish laws in a Roman document. See below, commentary to 11. 2 8 - 3 0 . Following Mendelssohn ("Senati Consulta", p. 196), Rosenthal suggests that d p % i e p a x i K d refer to the income pertaining to Hyrcanus according to the law (according to Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 222, they are "omnia ilia iura et commoda, quae ex legum divinarum auctoritate, Pontificibus debentur"), while (|)iA,dv8p(07r.a refer to voluntary contributions: "munera a privata pietate ... oblata" (Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 306, note 1). Rosenthal is probably correct in not accepting the other possibility mentioned by Mendelssohn, and in fact that which he prefers: "id quod Gutschmidius quoque mihi suasit — cum P. codice expungendum est fj vocabulum intellegendaque beneficia de iure pontificalia sola" (p. 196). On the terms (|)i?idv9pt07ia and beneficia, see C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, New Haven 1934, p. 373 and Reynolds, Aphr., p. 46. Ginsburg interprets these words as a reference to
42
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Caesar's permission to the Jews — throughout all the Roman world — to send the tax for the Temple of Jerusalem: M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, pp. 8 8 - 8 9 . 28. KEA-EUCO is a technical verb often used in official documents in the republican period. See RDGE nos. 7, 9, 10 B, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26, 31, 43, 66. 2 8 - 3 0 . The Latin version translates: si qua vero inter eos de Iudaicis institutis quaestio oriatur, placet mihi iudicium penes ipsum esse (see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 186), which probably has the same meaning, expressed in a different way, as that of the more common expression ut de suis rebus suis legibus uterentur. In this sense it is interpreted already by Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 196. Krebs points out that dycoYri has the meaning of instituta, ritus, religionem (Decreta Romanorum, p. 225). No doubt, this is one of the most important grants which appear in this document. According to Rosenthal, this right was extended to diaspora Jews too, "who would have had to apply to Hyrcanus for their questions in religious matters" (Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Casars", p. 218-219). Buchler, too, maintains that the fact that a copy of this decree was sent to Sidon suggests that the right to decide on Jewish matters was given to the Jews there too (Buchler, Studies in Jewish History, p. 10). See also Schalit, King Herod, pp. 86, 388, notes 7 - 8 and Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 8, note 51. The meaning of ueTa^u in this context is difficult to establish. If it means "in the meantime", it is strange that the amount of time is not defined, unlike what is found, for example, in the senatus consultum concerning Thisbai, where we find: "Concerning their magistrates and temples and revenues, that they would themselves have legal authority over them, about this matter it was decreed as follows: ... that they should have the legal authority for the next ten years. Decreed" (RDGE no. 2 = RGE no. 21). As far as I know, Krebs is the only scholar who translates UExa^u "in posterum \ and adds that "viros doctos, qui aliter interpretentur, errare" (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 2 2 3 - 5 ) . In fact, the meaning "afterwards" is also attested in contemporary sources: for example, to (LIETOC^'U odp(3axov in Acta 13:42 means "the next Sabbath". See H.G. Liddel, R. Scott, Greek English Lexicon, Oxford 1968, s.v. u.£xa^o, p. 1115. ,
30. d p e a K E i translates the Latin placere. d p E O K E i is also found in Caesar's decree confirming the right of asylum to the temple of Artemis at Sardis (SEG XXXIX, 1989, no. 1290, 1. 72) and later in edicts issued by proconsuls. See for example that issued in 44 CE by the proconsul Paullus Fabius Persicus concerning the finances of the Artemision: Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I a, by H. Wankel, IGSK, Bonn 1979, no. 17, 11. 45, 54. In the Latin version of the same text which appears in document no. 19, 1. 2, we find placet. Often the expression d p E O K E i xfj auyKArixq), which corresponds to senatui placere, appears in documents written both in the republican era (see loca citata in Sherk, RDGE, p. 370) and later in the imperial age. Other examples are found
I. Ant. XIV,
190-195
43
in Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, p. 54. 31. Similarly, 7iapaxeiuaaia is probably also granted to Rhosos, as a reward for the military help given by one of its citizens, Seleucus (RDGE no. 58, 4 2 - 3 0 BCE, col. II, 1. 35). The right not to give hospitality to soldiers and to "public" people is given also to the yepoixria of Ephesus (Ann.Ep. 1993, no. 1468, 29/30 CE, 1. 16). The exemption of Judaea from winter-quarters, which had relevant importance from many points of view, is mentioned again in document no. 5 in an expanded way, as Krebs has been the first to notice. On the exemptions from winter-quarters given to other peoples living under Roman rule mentioned by Polybius and by Livy, see Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 196. See also document no. 5, commentary to 11. 11-16. On the political implications, see the work of Sands quoted by Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 8, note 54. Smallwood, The Jews, p. 4 1 , observes that Caesar decreed that no military demands were to be made upon the country in order "to stress the fact that Palestine, though tributary, was a client kingdom and not a province". This is a complex of two documents. The first (11. 1-10) is a letter written by Caesar to the council of Sidon, the second an alleged decree preserving Caesar's decisions concerning Hyrcanus II. This complex of a letter accompanying an alleged decree finds numerous parallels in Roman official documents written from the first half of the second century BCE to Octavian's days. Often copies of decrees were sent also to neighboring peoples, for their information. RDGE no. 4 is a letter written between 175 and 160 BCE by the praetor Cornelius Blasio to the city of Corcyra, in order to inform it of the decision of the senate concerning Ambrakia and Athamania. The Ambrakiots and the Athamanians had sent envoys to the Roman senate to obtain a decree regarding a dispute over some piece of land. The praetor here gives a copy of the decree not only to them but also to the people of Corcyra. RDGE no. 7, too, is a letter written by Marcus Aemilius to the city of Mylasa in the middle of the second century BCE, accompanying an alleged decree of the senate about a dispute of the cities of Priene and Magnesia; and we have a letter of Publius Sextilius with an alleged decree, written, too, in the second century BCE, which has been preserved in an extremely fragmentary way (RDGE no. 8). Then we have three documents from Sulla's days. RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63, written in 81 BCE, is a 123-line long inscription, which contains two letters of Sulla to Stratonikeia and a decree of the senate which confirmed Sulla's decisions. Another letter was sent by Sulla to the Dionysiac Artists concerning their rights; it accompanies an alleged decree, which is not preserved, and was written between 84 and 81 BCE (RDGE no. 49 A = RGE no. 62 A). We also have a letter of Cornelius Sulla to Thasos, and the alleged senatus consultum
44
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
(RDGE no. 20, col. I, 80 BCE). Moreover, a letter written in 73 BCE by the consuls Marcus Terentius and Varro Lucullus to the city of Oropos is sent along with the senate decree which confirmed their decisions (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70). Similar examples are extant from Caesar's days. We have a letter written by Caesar to Mytilene between April 46 and January 45, a fragment of the alleged decree of the senate concerning the alliance and friendship with Mytilene and another letter written by Caesar (RDGE no. 26 = RGE no. 83). Finally, we have a letter by Octavian (or Antony?) to Plarasa-Aphrodisias written in 39 or 38 BCE, which accompanied an alleged decree concerning the city (RDGE no. 28 A = RGE no. 87). As to our document quoted by Josephus, why he quotes the letter and the copy of the decree sent to Sidon and not the first copy, that sent to Hyrcanus, is of course impossible to know, and may depend either on accidental reasons or on the choice of Josephus' source. Caesar's letter to Sidon concerning Hyrcanus II displays formal features which are very similar to those found in the other letters accompanying alleged decrees written in the same years mentioned above. In particular, a striking similarity is noticed to Caesar's letter to the city of Smyrna, where he writes [uutv dvxiypa(|)ov x]ou £7UKpiu.a[xoc; drcEOxaTiKa xox> yevovoxoc; 7C£pi... (RDGE no. 54, 1. 3), which closely resembles his letter to the magistrates of Sidon: xfjq y£vo|i£vr|<; dvaypa^fji; £v xfj SE?IXG) 7tp6<; Tpicavov... 7r,£7uou<|)a uuiv xo dvxtypa(j)Ov (here above, 11. 5-6). Our letter is also similar to that written some years later to the council of Plarasa-Aphrodisias by a Roman magistrate, where we read: "[Imperator Caesar...]... to the Plarasa-Aphrodisian magistrates, Boule and People, greetings. If you are well, it is good. I myself too am in good health, along with the army. Solon your envoy,... asked us to dispatch to you copies of the edict, the decree of the senate, the oath, the law, all concerning you, from our public records.... Copies of the privileges granted to you are affixed below. I wish you to register them in your public records" (RDGE no. 28 A = RGE no. 87, 39 or 38 BCE). The decree of the senate follows, concerning the rights bestowed on the city (RDGE no. 28 B ) . 1
2
3
In the text quoted by Josephus, after Caesar's letter to the Sidonians, the decree concerning Hyrcanus II is cited. The verbs which appear here are used in the first person: fto-u^oum (1. 22), KEXEVU) (1. 28), dpEO"K£i uoi (1. 30) and 1
S e e below, pp. 4 0 0 - 4 0 2 . S e e Sherk, RDGE, pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 . A s for the identity of the author of this letter, Sherk identifies him with Antony (RDGE no. 2 8 ) , while according to Millar the content of the letter and the comparison with Octavian's letter to Rhosos ought to have made clear that the author was Octavian, even before the discovery of the Aphrodisian dossier (F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate", JRS, 6 3 , 1973, p. 5 7 ) . S e e Aphr. no. 6. The issue, however, is still unresolved, and w e also find the suggestion that the author of the document was Antony, while the alleged letter was composed by Octavian (see SEG X X X I X , 1989, no. 1101). S e e also A. Giovannini, "Lettre d'un triumvir a Aphrodisias: Octave ou Marc Antoine?", Melanges d'epigraphie, d'histoire 2
3
1. Ant. XIV,
45
190-195
oi) 8oKiua£co (1. 32), which makes it clear that this is not a senatus consultum, where it is always the senate who is speaking, in the third person, but a decree issued by Caesar himself, which preserves his decisions about Hyrcanus II and the Jews. Decrees issued by Roman officials, both political leaders and military commanders, are often attested in the second and first centuries BCE. The right to issue edicts was held by consuls, praetors, dictators, aedils, quaestors, censors, plebeian tribunes and by governors in the provinces. The custom of issuing edicts was also followed by the prefects in the imperial era. These decrees had a precise, legal value, and were binding, even though in many cases they were later'confirmed in Rome by the senate, and we find in them the same verbs, pVuTiouai, KeXei)u>, dpecKei um, used by Caesar in our document. Decrees were issued by Sulla to the cities of Stratonikeia and Tabai, in Caria (RDGE no. 17, 11. 9 - 1 3 ; no. 18 = RGE no. 63, 81/80 BCE, H.,95-97), to the city of Oropos in 73 BCE (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 11. 42^45), by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus to Cyrene (RDGE no. 50, 67 BCE) and by Caesar to the city of Smyrna concerning a matter of land (RDGE no. 54 = RGE, no. 80 A, 1. 3), possibly at the same time in which our document was written (see 1. 1). Sometimes the decrees were accompanied by short letters which precede them, as is the case with the decree concerning the land of Oropos (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 11. 1-5) and some other times the decisions are announced in the form of letter (see that sent by Quintus Fabius Maximus to the city of Dyme in 115 BCE [RDGE no. 43 = RGE no. 50J and that by Sulla to the Dionysiac Artists [RDGE no. 49 = RGE no. 62, 84/81 BCE]). In decrees issued by magistrates, we find the date, the place where the decision was taken, the names of the components of the advisory board (as many as sixteen in RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 11. 6-16), the reasons which prompted the decision itself, often introduced by enei, "since", and then the decision reached. In particular, striking similarities are found between Caesar's decree concerning Hyrcanus and the Jews and some documents written in the same decade by Octavian concerning Seleucus of Rhosos. This, too, is a complex of three documents, of which the first is an accompanying letter, the 4
5
ancienne et de philologie offerts a Tadeusz Zawadzki, ed. M. Pierart, O. Curty, Fribourg 1989, pp. 6 1 - 6 7 and R. Gordon, M. Beard, J. Reynolds, C. Roueche, "Survey Articles: Roman Inscriptions 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 9 0 " , JRS, 8 3 , 1993, p. 135, where w e read: "the debate over the author of the letter continues". A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia 1953, pp. 4 4 7 - 4 4 8 . See also pp. 4 4 9 - 4 5 0 on the edictum provinciate. RDGE no. 58, Epistulae Octaviani de Seleuco nauarcha = RGE no. 86, written between 4
5
46
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
second the alleged decree issued by Octavian and the third a letter written later, in 30 BCE. The similarities concern the reason for the granting of the privileges, namely, the military aid given to the Romans: in the case of the Jews, their participation in Caesar's Alexandrian war, while in that of Seleucus, the naval action which gained him Roman gratitude may have been the battle of Philippi in 42 BCE. Similar, then, are the title given to Hyrcanus and Seleucus (amici populi Romani), the privileges (the right of using their national laws), the extension of the privileges to Hyrcanus' and Seleucus' children, mention of the fact that the decree is going to be deposited in the Capitol, and the provision that other cities (Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon in the case of the Jews; Tarsus, Antioch and probably Seleucia in that of Seleucus) shall insert these documents in their public archives. The similarity between Josephus' text and the Syrian epigraphs concerning Seleucus concerns both the decree and the accompanying letter. 6
Political loyalty and military assistance were the most frequent reasons for the granting of rights by Roman commanders, and not only in the case of the Jews. One of the best documented examples is that of Plarasa-Aphrodisias. When Mithridates invaded Asia in 88, Plarasa-Aphrodisias shared the pro-Roman feeling attested to in a number of Carian cities (deducible from the list of beneficiaries of Sulla after the war) and undertook a campaign in response to a call for help from Q. Oppius during the siege of Laodicea on the Lycus. In a document issued by the city itself we read: "Since Quintus Oppius, son of Quintus, Roman praetor with proconsular power, has sent (a message) that Laodicea and he himself are under siege and since the People decided that they should help him in force ... and it is necessary to despatch ambassadors too, to inform the proconsul of the policy of our People towards the Romans who are saviours and benefactors they shall inform him that our whole People, together with our wives and children and all our property (?) is ready (?) to risk all for Quintus and the Roman cause; and that without the rule of the Romans we do not choose even to live". Fortunately, Oppius' reply also survived: "For at a critical time when from Laodikeia to you I sent a letter that you should send soldiers to me, you were among the first to send them and your conduct was exactly what was due from good allies and 7
4 2 and 30 B C E according to Sherk, RGE, p. 106; on the date, see also F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate" (supra, note 3), pp. 5 5 , 58. See Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Seleukos of Rhosos and Hyrcanus II", JSJ, 26, 1995, pp. 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 . On the formal structure of the decree concerning Seleucus, where the dispositio consists of a long series of clauses defining the privileges given to Seleucus and his family, see also Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, p. 55. On the similarity of Caesar's grant to Hyrcanus to those given to other rulers, see E. Bammel, "Die Neuordnung des Pompeius und das romisch-jiidische Bundnis", ZDPV, 7 5 , 1959, p. 82. Aphr. no. 2b, col. 1,11. 1-8; col. II, 11. 9 - 1 4 , pp. 1 2 - 1 3 . 6
7
1. Ant. XIV,
190-195
47
friends of the Roman people. For these reasons I (will) take care ... to do for you whatever I can and for your public affairs to be of service... and (I will take care) that to the senate and the people those things which you have done I will, when I return to Rome, make clear" (Aphr. no. 3 = RGE no. 59 B, 11. 21-48). The senate's decree concerning Stratonikeia in 81 BCE, too, informs us that rights and privileges were granted to the city because "friendship and [loyalty and goodwill toward the] People of Rome (are things which) the Stratonikeians continuously... have always preserved, and that with soldiers [and grain and huge expenditures of money] the Republic [of the People of Rome] has been most zealously protected (by them), and that because of [their own] highmindedness [they joined with (the Romans) in fighting] against King [Mithridates' commanders]... and most courageously on behalf oi [the cities of Asia and] Greece they opposed (those commanders and forces)..." (RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63, 11. 78-86). The reason for the grant, therefore, was the military assistance which the people of Stratonikeia had given Sulla in the war against Mithridates. Immunity from all liturgies, choice between local and Roman law and honorary privileges like that of being entered in the roll of friends had also been given in 78 BCE to three Greek naval captains, their children and their descendants, as a reward since "they had been present with their ships, at the beginning of the Italian war, and had given valiant and faithful service to our Republic" (RDGE no,. 22 = RGE no. 66). Another parallel may be seen in the privileges given by Caesar to the tribe of the Trinovantes in South Britain, after they helped him in his second expedition against the Catuvellauni. 8
In the case of Hyrcanus II, too, the rights were granted by Caesar as a reward for military help received. During the Alexandrian war, in the winter of 47 BCE, Hyrcanus II and Antipater sent a military contingent to Caesar, which, according to Josephus, had been very useful during his campaign: "When Caesar, after his victory over Pompey and the latter's death, was fighting in Egypt, Antipater, the governor of the Jews, under the orders from Hyrcanus, proved hinself useful to Caesar in many ways. For when Mithridates of Pergamum, who was bringing an auxiliary force, was unable to make his way through Pelusium and was delayed at Ascalon, Antipater arrived with three thousand heavily-armed Jewish soldiers, and also managed to get the chiefs of Arabia to come to his (Caesar's) aid; and it was owing to him that all the rulers of Syria furnished aid, not wishing to be outdone in their zeal for Caesar.... Mithridates then left Syria and came to Pelusium, and as its inhabitants would not admit him, besieged the city. Foremost in bravery was Antipater, who was the first to pull down part of the wall, and so opened a way for the others to pour into the city.... But when Mithridates 8
See J.F. Drinkwater, "The Trinovantes: S o m e Observations on their Participation in the Events of A . D . 60", RSA, 5, 1975, pp. 5 3 - 5 7 .
48
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
and Antipater with their men were on their way to Caesar, the Jews who inhabited the district of Onias, as it was called, prevented them from doing so. Antipater, however, persuaded them too to side with his party on the ground of their common nationality, especially when he showed them a letter from the high Priest Hyrcanus, in which he urged them to be friendly to Caesar and receive his army hospitably and furnish it with all things necessary. And so, when they saw that Antipater and the high priest had the same wish, they complied" (Ant. XIV, 128-132). The description of Antipater's brave deeds in battle follows, on account of which Mithridates "wrote an account of this to Caesar, declaring that Antipater had been responsible for their victory and also for their safety; and as a result of this, Caesar commended Antipater on that occasion, and, what is more, made use of him for the most dangerous tasks throughout the entire war. The natural result was that Antipater was wounded in some of the battles" (Ant. XIV, 133-136). The account of the events which took place in Egypt is more or less in accord with that of other sources, Hirtius in primis, and may be trusted, in spite of inexact details such as that of the number of the Jewish soldiers sent to Egypt, which were not three thousand or two thousand but one and a half thousand, as we learn from Caesar's decree, 1. 18. 9
It is also difficult to know which part was played by Antipater and which by Hyrcanus during this campaign. In Bell. I, 187-194 Antipater gets full credit for the military operations in Egypt, while from Ant. XIV, 138-139 we learn that Hyrcanus himself took an active part in the operations: "it is said by many writer's that Hyrcanus took part in this campaign and came to Egypt. And this statement of mine is attested by Strabo of Cappadocia, who writes as follows, on the authority of Asinius: 'After Mithridates, Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, also invaded Egypt'. And again the same Strabo in another passage writes as follows, on the authority of Hypsicrates: 'Mithridates went out alone, but Antipater, the procurator of Judaea, was called to Ascalon by him and provided him with an additional three thousand soldiers, and won over the other princes; and the high priest Hyrcanus also took part in the campaign'. These are Strabo's own words". Schwartz is surely correct in suggesting that the difference between the two passages lay in the different sources used by Josephus: Nicolaus in the first case, who stresses the importance of Antipater's intervention at the expense of that of Hyrcanus, and Strabo in the latter. 10
In any case, Hyrcanus' military help during the Alexandrian war is probably still referred to by Augustus: "Caesar Augustus, Pontifex Maximus with
9
On the differences, see above, commentary to I. 19. See also P.J. Sijpesteijn, "Mithridates' March from Pergamum to Alexandria in 48 B.C.", Latomus, 2 4 , 1965, pp. 122-127. On the numerous and meaningful differences between the Antiquities and the War 1 0
1. Ant. XIV,
49
190-195
tribunician power, proclaims. Since the Jewish people has been found well disposed to the Roman people not only at the present time but also in time past, and especially in the time of my father the emperor Caesar, as has their high priest Hyrcanus..." (document no. 22,11. 5-6. See also Ant. XVI, 52-53). It is therefore clear that, whatever individual role was played by Hyrcanus and Antipater, the Jews had a part in the victory of Caesar. That is why when, after the Alexandrian war was over, by March 27 of the unreformed calendar (which corresponds to January 14), and Caesar left Egypt and reached Syria, he rewarded both Hyrcanus and Antipater for their help. In Ant. XIV, 137 Josephus writes that "moreover, when Caesar in the course of time concluded the war and sailed to Syria, he honoured him greatly; while confirming Hyrcanus in the high-priesthood, he gave Antipater Roman citizenship and exemption from taxation everywhere" (Bell I, 194 and Ant. XIV, 1 3 7 ) . The confirmation of Hyrcanus' high priesthood is preserved in our decree, while the decisions concerning Antipater were seemingly embodied in a.separate decree, which Josephus did not have on hand or which he deliberately, choose not to quote (according to Rosenthal, it was eliminated on purpose on account of hatred of Antipater's h o u s e ) . 11
12
As for the content of Caesar's decree, Hyrcanus is recognized as high priest and ethnarch of the Jews (titles however which he had been given already by P o m p e y ) , and these titles are to be hereditary. Hyrcanus is thus restored to the political status from which Gabinius had removed him, but he does not get back the title of k i n g . It is however doubtful whether this meant a real cnrcovouia, as Schalit b e l i e v e s . Rosenthal points out the terminology used here, namely, the fact that Hyrcanus is recognized as ethnarch "of the Jews" and not of Judaea, while Archelaus is later called by Augustus "ethnarch of half the territory that had been subject to Herod..." (Ant. XVII, 317; the same in Bell. II, 93). Rosenthal 13
14
15
concerning Hyrcanus II, see B. Motzo, "Ircano II nella tradizione storica", Studi di storia e filologia, I, 1927, pp. 1-18 = idem, Ricerche sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica, Roma 1977, pp. 7 1 9 - 7 3 6 ; D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on Hyrcanus II", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, pp. 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 ; Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 2 3 5 , note 3. The contemporaneity of Caesar's grants to Hyrcanus and to Antipater has already been noticed by Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 188. See also Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 192. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", pp. 3 0 3 ^ 1 . See A. Gilboa, "The Grant of Roman Citizenship to Antipater, Herod's Father" (Hebr.), Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel in Memory ofZvi Avneri, ed. A. Gilboa, U. Rappaport et al., Haifa 1970, pp. 7 1 - 7 7 . See Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 2 1 3 . S e e Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 3 0 2 . On the recognition of Hyrcanus as ethnarch, see Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 182, note 2; M o m i g l i a n o , "Ricerche", pp. 1 3 - 1 4 = 1 9 5 - 6 , Schurer, The History, p. 2 7 1 ; S m a l l w o o d , The Jews, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 , 1 3 5 - 6 . King Herod, p. 86. 1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
15
50
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
observes that in the case of Archelaus the term applied to an area, whereas Hyrcanus is appointed as ruler of a people, the Jews, without taking into account the geographical place where they l i v e d . Buchler, too, suggests that the title "ethnarch of the Jews" meant recognized authority not only over Judaean Jews, but over all the Jews, including those living in other Roman provinces. In fact, Hyrcanus is later called apx^pzvq Qeou \)V|/iaxo\) in Augustus' edict (document no. 22,11. 10-11), which was seemingly an official title of the Hasmoneans. Piattelli concludes that "...there would seem to be no doubt that, at least in theory, the authority of prince-priest which had belonged first to Simon Maccabaeus and then to his descendants of the House of the Hasmoneans was now to be fully re-established". Caesar also bestows upon Hyrcanus and his children a number of privileges of a formal nature, such as that of being allies and numbered among his particular friends, and exempts Judaea from winter-quarters. The main grant made by Caesar is the recognition of the Jewish traditional priestly rights and the right to decide "concerning the Jews' manner of life", which probably means the right to use their own l a w s . This was a common right often bestowed by the Romans upon Greek cities, often attested both in literary and epigraphical sources. This right was also often granted de facto to peoples living under Roman r u l e . As for the question whether Caesar's recognition of the Jews' right to decide "concerning their manner of life" was strictly related to matters related to worship only, as maintained by Taubler and by Piattelli, or had a broader meaning, including civil jurisdiction, as maintained by Stemberger and by Rabello, there is no consensus among scholars. In any case, as Rosenthal correctly stresses, it appears that Caesar gave religious autonomy to the Jews and some economic privileges, but we do not find political autonomy. 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Piattelli suggests that Caesar granted these rights to the Jews in order to create in them the illusion that the traditional form of governorship in Judaea remained the same: "Rome attempted to convince them [the Jews] that from now on again thanks to the authority of Rome their sacred principles would be safeguard and in general that if there had been a change it was only for 1 6
"Die Erlasse Caesars", pp. 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 . See also p. 2 2 2 . "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", pp. 9 6 , 9 9 . Piattelli, "An Enquiry", pp. 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 . S e e my essay "Caesar and Jewish Law", RB, 102, 1995, pp. 2 8 - 3 7 . See below, p. 4 1 7 . Taubler, Imperium Romanum, p. 161, note 3; Piattelli, "An Enquiry", p. 2 2 4 ; G. Stemberger, "Die Juden im Romischen Reich: Unterdruckung und Privilegierung einer Minderheit", Christlicher Antijudaismus und Judischer Antipaganismus: Ihre Motive und Hintergrunde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, ed. H. Frohnhofen, Hamburg 1990, p. 9; A . M . Rabello, "Civil Justice in Palestine from 63 B C E to 7 0 CE", in: CSS, p. 296. S e e b e l o w , pp. 4 3 0 ^ 1 3 3 . "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 322. 1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
1. Ant. XIV,
51
190-195
the better since Rome's greatest concern was the restoration of liberty to those peoples who came under her sphere of influence". In fact, that of the Jews is not an isolated case. After Pharsalus, Caesar gave freedom also to the Thessalians, to Cnidus and to the proples of Amisus and of Ilium (Strabo XIII, 1, 27; Plut., Caes. 48, 1; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 88; Dio XLII, 48, 4). We may reconstruct the date in which our decree was written if we follow Caesar's movements. He left Alexandria for Syria in 47 BCE, about the seventh of June. Exactly when he reached Syria is a matter of controversy in modern research. Lord relies on a passage of Hirtius where he writes that Caesar left Alexandria for Syria by land (itinere terrestri) (Bell.Alex. 33, 6), a passage which was>deleted by Nipperdey in his edition of Caesar's works (1847, p. 195), beeause Hirtius writes later (Bell.Alex. 66, 2) that Caesar proceeded from Syria to Cilicia in "the same fleet in which he had come". Relying on this deleted passage, Lord concludes that Caesar travelled by land with the army, in which case the journey took about 35 days, from June 7 to the beginning of July. Basing himself on Bell.Alex. 66, 2 (ipse eadem classe qua venerat, profiscitur in Ciliciam), Rice Holmes maintains instead that Caesar left by sea arriving at Ace-Ptolemais, on the Syrian coast, by June 11 or 12, which correspond to March 30 of the Julian calendar. His arrival in Syria was known at Antioch on June 1 7 . How long Caesar remained in Syria, we do not know. Hirtius states that Caesar remained in Syria "a few days" (Bell.Alex. 66, 1), and the meaning of this expression is impossible to establish exactly, since it may mean five, ten, fifteen days or even three w e e k s . Then Caesar resumed his voyage, sailing from Seleucia to Tarsus. It was towards the end of June according to Rice H o l m e s . This suggestion appears more convincing than those put forward by the scholars who believe that Caesar arrived in Syria by land. 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
According to Judeich and to Rice H o l m e s it was therefore in the second half of June in 47 BCE that Caesar rewarded with proofs of his favor all 2 4
Daniela Piattelli, "Ricerche intorno alle relazioni politiche tra Roma e l'e0vo<; TG&V IouSctlwv dal 161 A . C . al 4 A.C.", Bulletino dell'istituto di Diritto Romano, 7 4 , 1972, p. 303. L.E. Lord, "The Date of Julius Caesar's Departure from Alexandria", JRS, 28, 1938, pp. 2 5 - 2 8 . Other testimonies on Caesar's v o y a g e to Syria by Plutarch, Suetonius and Appian are quoted by Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 191, note 2. See the various suggestions of Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, III, p. 5 0 9 , note 8 and the appendix "Note on the Meaning of 'Pauci Dies'" in Lord, "The Date of Julius Caesar's Departure" (supra, note 2 5 ) , pp. 3 9 - 4 0 . The Roman Republic, III, pp. 5 0 9 - 5 1 0 . The beginning of July according to Schmidt (quoted by Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, III, pp. 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 and 5 0 9 , note 8), the 8th of July according to Roth (Rom und die Hasmonaer, p. 4 7 ) , or the second half of July according to Lord, "The Date of Julius Caesar's Departure" (supra, note 25). pp. 2 4 - 2 8 . Judeich, Caesar im Orient, p. 138. 2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
52
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
the dynasts who paid him homage and those who had helped him, in the same way in which Sulla had made concessions to loyal cities after the Mithridatic war. Hirtius writes that in Syria Caesar tarried in almost all the more important cities (Bell.Alex. 65, 4), rewarded all who had helped him, composing disputes, giving audience to native potentates, and making arrangements for the security of the province: reges, tyrannos, dynastas provinciae finitimos[que], qui omnes ad eum concurrerant, receptos in fidem condicionibus inpositis provinciae tuendae ac defendendae, dimittit at sibi et populo Romano amicissimos (Bell.Alex. 6 5 ) . We also have an epigraphical testimony, which attests the grants accorded to the city of Pergamum by Caesar, dated to his second dictatorship (RDGE no. 54 = RGE no. 80 A). That these grants had been given in honor of Mithridates is clear from IGRR IV, no. 1682 = RGE no. 80 C, where the people of Pergamum "honored Mithridates... because he has restored to the ancestral gods [the city] and [the] land and has become after [Pergamos] and Philetairos his native city's new founder". 31
It was probably in these days, too, that Antigonus, addressing Caesar, brought charges against Antipater and Hyrcanus. As for the date on which the copy of the decree and the accompanying letter were sent to Sidon, Rice Holmes is probably correct in suggesting that they were written while Caesar was staying in Syria, perhaps at Ace Ptolemais, as already maintained by Judeich and by Lord. This seems a better suggestion than the conclusion I arrived at in a previous examination of this decree. There I have proposed that the accompanying letter was written at a later stage, in the autumn of the same year, accompanying both this decree and its confirmation by the senate. The practice of sending a decree issued by a magistrate together with its confirmation by the Roman senate is in fact well attested in numerous Greek inscriptions. But if a senate decree was also appended to the letter, we would expect here the word 86y|a,a, which is the technical term which translates the Latin senatus consultum. Instead, Caesar writes to the magistrates of Sidon that he is sending them copy of a Y£vo|i£vr|<; dvaypa(|)fj<; (11. 4 - 5 ) , which has a more general meaning. 32
33
34
35
In conclusion, the accompanying letter may have been written by Caesar soon after, perhaps immediately after, Caesar's decree, and sent to Hyrcanus,
3 1
See M. Gelzer, Caesar: Politician and Statesman, Oxford 1968, pp. 2 5 8 - 2 5 9 ; S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford 1971, p. 2 3 8 , and M. Rambaud, "A propos de l'humanitas de Cesar", EC, 4 0 , 1972, pp. 1 4 5 - 1 5 5 . Ant. X I V , 1 4 0 - 1 4 2 ; Bell. I, 1 9 5 - 2 0 0 . On the contemporaneity of these events, see Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 237. The Roman Republic, III, pp. 2 1 0 , 507. Judeich, Caesar im Orient, p. 122; Lord, "The Date of Julius Caesar's Departure" (supra, note 25), p. 26. "Caesar's Decrees in the Antiquities", p. 7 4 . 3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
1. Ant. XIV, 190-195
53
to Sidon and to other cities (perhaps the same mentioned in document no. 2 ) , before Caesar left Syria, in the summer of 47 BCE. 3 6
3 6
See below, document no. 2, commentary to 1. 9.
Ant.
X I V , 196
Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
196
(x. 3) raioi) Kaiaapoq auTOKpdxopoc; imdiou 5e5o|Lieva cuYK£%a>pri|j.£va 7 t p o a K £ K p i | i £ v a eaxiv oux(i>q £%ovxa. 1.
dictatoris Lat.
1-2.
8 e 8 o u £ v a P Lat. 8 e 8 o y u e v a F L A M V .
Translation The following are the grants, concessions and awards made by Gaius Caesar, Imperator and Consul. Commentary This opening sentence is probably not part of the document itself. Among the titles of Caesar we find "consul", but without the number of his consulship, and this is meaningful since in the case of Caesar the title "consul" has no meaning without the specification of the number which accompanies it. Caesar was consul five times in the period between 59 and to 44: the first time in 59, the second in 48, the third in 46, the fourth in 45 and the fifth in 44. Moreover, the words which follow Caesar's titles, 5E8OU£VO: o"vyK£X(opr||j.eva 7tpooK£Kpiu.£va EGTIV OUTCDC; Exovxa, find no parallel in official Roman documents and rather point to a kind of introduction added later. As to its origin, opinions differ in contemporary research. It might possibly have been added by the same Josephus, as Viereck maintains ("Integra verba decreti non sunt, sed Iosepho videntur tribuenda esse"), or by his source, as maintained by Krebs and by Mendelssohn. but it is also not impossible that this is a kind of title of a series of documents, which Josephus mistakenly took for the beginning of a specific document, as Taubler and Momigliano suggest. 1
2
3
4
1
MRR, II, pp. 187, 272, 293, 304, 315 and MRR, Supplement, 1960, p. 31. S e e also E. Badian, "Caesar's Cursus and the Intervals between Offices", JRS, 49, 1959, pp. 81-89 = Studies in Greek and Roman History, Oxford 1964, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1964, pp. 140-156. Viereck, Sermo graecus, p. 97. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 230; Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta" p. 208. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, p. 174; Momigliano, "Ricerche", p. 15=197. 2
3
4
2. Ant. XIV,
196-198
55
If these lines are a sort of title and not part of a document, it is clear why we find not a precise date, but a general mention of Caesar "imperator and consul" ("dictator and consul" in the Latin manuscript), titles which were widely known among Romans. And we are left to wonder whether Josephus was, or was not, aware that in the case of Caesar the title of "consul" meant nothing without the number which accompanied it.
2. Ant. X I V , 1 9 6 - 1 9 8 October 4 7 B C E (?)
This is possibly a fragment of the senatus consultum which confirmed the decree issued by Caesar concerning Hyrcanus II and the Jews preserved in document no. 1. Bibliography J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro ludaeis facta e Iosepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768, pp. 2 3 2 - 3 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati, Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 0 6 - 2 1 1 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in Josephus Alterth. X I V , 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, p. 179; W. Judeich, Caesar im Orient, Leipzig 1885, pp. 1 2 7 - 8 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, pp. 9 7 - 9 9 ; A. Buchler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten und die romischen Steuern in den Erlassen Caesars", Festschrift zum Achtzigsten Geburstage Moritz Steinschneider's, Leipzig 1896, pp. 9 2 - 9 9 = Studies in Jewish History: the Adolf Buchler Memorial Volume, ed. I. Brodie, J. Rabbinowitz, London 1956, pp. 2 , 7 , 9 ; E. Schiirer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes imZeitalter Jesu Christi, I, Leipzig 1 9 0 1 , p. 346; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, pp. 162, 1 7 2 - 3 , note 1; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 3 8 - 1 3 9 ; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, Leipzig 1914, pp. 5 4 - 6 0 ; T. Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, III, N e w York 1967 (first ed. 1923), p. 507; A. Momigliano, "Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano," ASNP, ser. I, 3, 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 15=197, 1 9 = 2 0 1 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 9 1 ; A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1964, pp. 30, 3 5 6 , note 121; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 2 7 3 , note 2 3 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 42; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1979, p. 219; A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 684; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 172, 196; T e s s a Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 117; eadem, "Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule: a N e w Approach," in W . S . Green ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism, V: Studies in Judaism and
56
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Its Greco-Roman Context, Brown Judaic Studies 3 2 , Atlanta 1985, p. 24; I. Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1993, pp. 7 - 1 1 ; M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Hebr.), ed. D.R. Schwartz, Jerusalem 1995, pp. 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 , note f4; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Caesar's Decrees in the Antiquities: Josephus' Forgeries or Authentic Roman Senatus ConsultaT, Athenaeum, 8 4 , 1996, pp. 7 7 - 7 9 ; eadem, "Ant. X I V , 185-267: A Problem of Authenticity", in: CSS, pp. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 .
196
197
198
(x. 3) 67iu)<; xd xeicva cmxoij xofj IouSaicov eGvovi; dpxn, K a i xoix; SeSojievoix; xorcoix; KapTti^covxai, Kai 6 dpxiepeix; avxoq Kai eGvdpxric; xcov 'IouSatcov rcpo'iaxfjxai xcov d8iKov|Lievcov. 7teui|/ai 8e 7cp6<; TpKavov xov 'AAe^avSpou uiov d p x i e p e a xcov 'IouSaicov 7cp£a(3e\)xd(; xovq rcepi tyiTdac, Kai G\)\i\iaxiac, Sia^e^ouevoix;- dvaxeGfjvai 8e Kai %akKfjv SeA.xov xafjxa rcepiexo'Doav ev xe xcp K a 7 t e xcoXicp Kai Ei8covi Kai Ti3pcp Kai ev 'AoKdA,covi ev xoit; vaoiq eyKexapayja-evriv ypdjiuaaiv 'PcoiLiaiKoii; xe Kai 'EA,A,r|viKot<;. O7ico<; xe xo 86yua xofjxo 7cdai xoi<; Kaxd 7t6A.iv x a u i a i q Kai xolq xoiJxcov fiyo^uevoi<;*ei(; xe xoix; (j)iA,o\)<; d v e v e y K c o o r Kai ^ e v i a xoi<; 7cpeaPe\)xalc; T t a p a a x e i v Kai xd 8iaxdy|iaxa 8ia7ue(x\)/ai Ttavxaxcu.
10
6. Kai n p e a P e w d i ; P. 10. Kai post 'Acncdtaovi del. Mommsen. 12. TT)V nolxv P.
Translation That his children shall rule over the Jewish people and enjoy the revenues of the places given them, and that the high priest, being also ethnarch, shall be the protector of those Jews who are unjustly treated. And that envoys shall be sent to Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest of the Jews, to discuss terms of friendship and alliance. And that a bronze tablet containing these decrees shall be set up in the Capitol and at Sidon and Tyre and Ascalon in the temples , engraved in Latin and Greek characters. Also that they shall report this edict to all the treasurers city by city, and to the magistrates of these... and to our friends, that hospitality may be shown the envoys, and that these ordinances may be published everywhere. 1
1
"and in the temples": Marcus, Loeb ed., vol. VII, p. 5 5 3 .
Commentary 1-2. Concerning the possible reasons why the sentence starts from the middle
2. Ant. XIV,
196-198
57
and lacks a main verb, see below, p. 62. The document opens with otccoc;, which introduces the decisions of the senate in many senatus consulta preserved by Greek inscriptions: fj a\)yK[Xr\]xoc, ... eftepaicoaev 6na>q vouxnc; xe Kai e 0 e a i v Kai 8iKaioi<; x [ p 6 > l (RDGE no. 70, 11. 14-16); fj 5e cruYKA-nxoc; eSoyjidxiae [onaiq... (RDGE, no. 14,11. 20-21); xfjv at>YKX,T|xov Kpiveiv OTKOC, (RDGE no. 22,1. 12). On the rights bestowed upon Hyrcanus and his children (but he had only a daughter: see above, document no. 1, commentary to 1. 21) and on their political meaning, see Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 3 8 - 4 3 , Schurer, The History, p. 273, note 23 and Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, pp. 7-11. 2. As already Krebs suggested (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 232-3), the 8e5ou,evou<; xorcoix; may be identified with the places mentioned in document no. 5, 11. 2 8 - 3 1 . See below, pp. 9 0 - 9 1 . 3 - 4 . In the diaspora, the office of Tcpoaxdxrn; is attested from the second century BCE to the sixth century CE in the Jewish communities of Egypt, Italy and Syria. The rcpooxaxai were high-ranking representative'leaders, political and juridical spokesmen for the community. In Roman times, it appears that the functions and meaning of the 7upooxdxr|<; were influenced by those of the patronus, so that jcpoaxdxnc; came to mean "protector" (see H.G. Liddel, R. Scott, The Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1976, pp. 1482-3), a meaning which, however, it also had in Hellenistic times (see Ant. XII, 167 and O. Montevecchi, "Una donna 'prostatis' del figlio minorehne in un papiro del II ", Aegyptus, 61, 1981, pp. 103-115; eadem, "Ancora su prostates-prostatis", Aegyptus, 69, 1989, pp. 109-112). Also in Roman times we have the case of a female Tipoaxdxriq at Aphrodisias in Caria (see Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 102, note 54). In Latin, different meanings of the term 7 t p o o x d x r | ( ; are reported by Mason: trihunus plehis, patronus, tutor, princeps, and praefectus (H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman institutions, Toronto 1974, pp. 81-82). Among these possibilities, it appears that it is the meaning of "protector" which is probably to be attached to the term which appears in our text. On Tipo'iaxfjxai followed by genitive, see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, pp. 234-236. In this case, Hyrcanus was recognized by Caesar as representative of his fellow Jews (on the possible identity of whom, see below, pp. 6 5 - 6 6 ) . At least formally, the ethnarch was entrusted with authority in legal matters, as Piattelli suggests ("An Enquiry", p. 219). According to Schalit, it was probably the same Hyrcanus who asked Caesar to obtain the 7cpoaxaaia for the diaspora Jews (King Herod, pp. 30, 356, note 121). Roman appointments to 7cpoGxdxT|<; seem to have been ad hoc appointments, made only when warranted by extraordinary circumstances. See A. Kasher, "The Office of 7tpooxdxr|<; in the Jewish Communities of the Greco-Roman Diaspora" (Hebr.), Zion, 47, 1982, pp. 399-406. On patronage in Caesar's days, see I. Bitto, "La concessione del patronato nella politica di Cesare", Epigraphica, 32, 1970, pp. 172-180. As for the rcpocxaoia in v
a
TOl
58
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Judaea, Schwartz observes that the high priests' rcpooxaoia in Hellenistic times is mentioned in the Greek version of Ecclesiasticus, in Hecataeus of Abdera's account of the Jews as quoted by Diodorus Siculus, and in Diodorus' own account in the same context, but no references to it are found in sources emanating from Judaea. The provenance of these few references may hint that the notion was one created in the Hellenistic diaspora, where the Jews viewed the high priest as the 7ipooxdxr|<; of the entire people, in the image of their local community leaders. Josephus mentions the 7r.poGxaoia of the sons of Asamonaios in Hellenistic times (Ant. XX, 238), and that enjoyed by Hyrcanus in Pompey's time ("Pompey also restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus and permitted him to have the 7tpoo"xaoia": Ant. XX, 244). (Feldman translates "the leadership of the nation": Loeb ed., IX, pp. 515, 519). Also Joseph son of Tobias is called 7tpo<xrdxr|<; of the Jewish people in Ant. XII, 167, and Mattathias is said to have left the rcpooxaaia xcbv jcpayiidxcov to his son Judah (Ant. XII, 285). Whether the term also had a more specific, technical meaning, however, is difficult to establish. Schwartz observes that "it is notoriously difficult to designate any real or legal content of the high-priestly 7 c p o a x a o i a . . . . Nothing we know about the Hellenistic or Roman empires would lead us to expect that such a position existed" (D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community", SCI, 7, 1983/4, pp. 3 6 - 4 9 . In particular, see p. 44, note 47. See also the bibliography quoted by Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, note d, pp. 84-85). 4 - 5 . The notion of a Roman delegation which has to be sent to Hyrcanus "to discuss terms of friendship and alliance" is accepted as historical by Mendelssohn in spite of the fact that such a delegation was never sent (Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", pp. 210-211). Since its historical plausibility is questionable a priori, Judeich suggests deleting npoq before Tpicavov; otherwise, he maintains, it would be impossible to understand the mention of hospitality to Hyrcanus' envoys in Rome mentioned below on 1. 14. Judeich's suggestion is rejected by Roth (Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 5 5 - 5 6 ) but accepted by Taubler and by Momigliano (Taubler, Imperium Romanum, pp. 172-173, note 1, suggests that7tp6<; was added not by Josephus, but during the process of transmission of the text; Momigliano, "Ricerche", p. 15=197), according to whom npoq Tpicavov is probably a mistake, and we should instead read here ne\i\\f ai 8E Tpicavov (see also the works quoted M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 239, note 14). The legation of Hyrcanus to Rome is identified with that sent in the autumn of 47, about which we learn from Ant. XIV, 185: "Caesar on arriving at Rome was ready to sail for Africa to make war on Scipio and Cato, when Hyrcanus sent to him with the request that he should confirm the treaty of friendship and alliance with him". See Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 128; Momigliano, "Ricerche", p. 15=197 and Smallwood, The Jews, p. 42, note 65. There are, however, also good reasons for leaving the text as it is preserved by the manuscripts.
2. Ant. XIV,
196-198
59
If we consider the construction of this section, we see that it starts with followed by two phrases in subjunctive; then we have three phrases in accusative and infinitive. All of them contain dispositions for the future: "that his children shall rule...; that the high priest shall be...; that envoys shall be sent; ...that a bronze tablet shall be set up". Then we find two more similar phrase, one introduced by 67tco<; and one in accusative and infinitive. They, too, contain provisions for the future. It seems therefore improbable that, in a sequence of seven phrases, all of them dealing with the future, one of them would deal with the past, telling that a delegation had been sent by Hyrcanus. Moreover, this does not seem the place for a report of past events. In this kind of text, we find fhat,the senate used to report past events and deal with the historical background first. Then the decision appeared, introduced by onwq and subjunctive and/or in accusative and infinitive. This leads us to suggest that 7tp6<; may be left as it is preserved by the manuscripts, as did Niese and Marcus. It is not impossible that the senate could have mentioned politely a delegation which Rome might dispatch to Judaea in the future. OTCQX;
6-7. The terms <|>iA,ia Kai auujiaxta often appear together in Roman official documents. Parallels are found in RDGE nos. 7, 11. 4 1 , 44; 9, 11. 18, 41; 10 B, 1. 5; 12,1. 4; 58, 1. 77. 7 - 9 . Senatus consulta dealing with alliances with foreign peoples were usually engraved in bronze and displayed on the Capitol. See below, pp. 383-384. On the Capitol and its function, see Marianne Bonnefond-Coudry, Le senat de la republique romaine, Rome 1989, pp. 6 5 - 8 0 . 9. The practice of informing neighboring towns of the decisions made by the Roman senate concerning a given people was very common. In Octavian's letter concerning Seleucus, for example, we read: "the documents written below were extracted from a stele from the Capitolium in Rome, [documents which I ask you] to enter into your public archives. And send a copy [of them to] the Boule and People of Tarsus, the Boule and People of Antioch, the Boule and People [of Seleukia] that they might enter it (into their archives)" (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, letter I, 11. 5-8). In the Lex de provinciis praetoriis, too, we read: "The praetor... [is to send] letters to the peoples ... according to this statute. [And] he is to send a copy [of this] statute to the cities and states, to whom [it is appropriate] to send [letters] according to this statute (Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 20-24: Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 254). See the bibliography mentioned above (document no. 1, commentary to 1. 7). As for the reasons why Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon were chosen as recipients of the copies of the senate decree, we may recall that these cities were known to have displayed a hostile policy toward the Jews in the past. The traditional hostility of Sidon toward the Hasmoneans is already attested by / Mace. 5:15, according to which the inhabitants of "Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon... joined forces against the Jews of Galilee to destroy them". See also Ant. XII, 331 and A. Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic
60
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Cities in Eretz-Israel, Tubingen 1990, pp. 68, 182-3, 206. On Tyre, see loca citata on p. 372 and on Ascalon, loca citata on p. 367. See also G. Fuks, "The Greek Cities of Eretz-Israel during the Hasmonean Period" (Hebr.), in: In the Time of the Hasmoneans, ed. D. Amit, H. Eshel, Jerusalem 1995, pp. 9 5 - 1 0 0 . It also seems that Phoenician merchants took an exceptionally active part in the leasing and purchase of Jewish lands which had been confiscated from the Jews by the Romans in Pompey's time (see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, pp. 312-3). Krebs suggests that they had to be informed of the new policy toward the Jews, perhaps also in order to protect the right of the Jews living in those places (Decreta Romanorum, p. 206-9). They had to be formally informed inasmuch as they were not part of the Roman world, but retained an independent status which Antony respected when he gave Cleopatra "the cities between the Eleutherus River and Egypt with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, which he knew to have been free from the time of their ancestors..." (Ant. XV, 95). Tyre belonged to the civitates foederatae, Ascalon had been formally recognized as independent by the Romans and Sidon resembled Tyre and Ascalon in possessing its own calendar, whereas most cities in the same region counted their years from Pompey. This independent status ended only in Augustus' days. See Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 2 0 5 - 6 and Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, pp. 182-183. Buchler observes that after Hyrcanus was recognized as ethnarch, Caesar "found it necessary to make this regulation of his known to the heathen neighbors.... The rights granted to Hyrcanus should be made known outside Judaea also, since they concern the Jews dwelling outside Judaea". From the fact that Caesar sent a copy of his decree to these cities, Buchler also infers that in Phoenicia too "the Jews could transmit to Jerusalem the tenth part of the produce of their land and also other offerings" (Buchler, Studies in Jewish History, pp. 2, 7, 9; similar conclusions are reached by M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 89, who understands this offering to refer to the Temple tax, and by M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, London 1973, p. 59). See also below, pp. 201-203. 10-11. In the East, the practice of publishing Roman documents both in Latin and in Greek was a common one, which is amply attested in Greek inscriptions. See document no. 1, commentary to 11. 8-10. On 1. 10, Kai is probably a mistake and should be deleted, as Mommsen suggests (see Loeb ed., VII, p. 552, note 3). The common place of publication was in the temples, and it appears that the temples referred to are those found in Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon; otherwise, we would not understand the meaning of the phrase: in which temples and where? The reason for adding Kai to the text is easy to imagine. In the line immediately preceding, we have three Kai at little distance. The eye of the copyist caught the Kai, and he wrote it one too many times. 11-13. 86y^ia is the technical Greek term which translates the Latin senatus
2. Ant. XIV,
196-198
61
consultum. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 373. The provision that the decree "shall be communicated to all the quaestors and magistrates of several cities" finds a close parallel in a senate decree passed in 78 BCE, where we read: "Quintus Lutatius and Marcus Aemilius the consuls, one of them or both, if it seems good to them, are to send letters to our magistrates, who are in charge of the provinces of Asia and Macedonia, and to their (city) magistrates, that the senate wishes and considers it just that these things be done in this fashion" (RDGE no. 22 = RGE no. 66, 11. 28-30). 12-13. xauiac; Korea noXiv translates the Latin quaestor urbanus. See RDGE nos. 23,1. 26; 29,1. 3 and Sherk, RDGE, p. 16. Kaxd 7toA.iv is preferred to Kaxd xfjv 7t6Aiv, which appears in the Codex Palatinus, already by Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, pp. 239-242. On the function of the xauiac; in the Greek cities, see A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 679. 13. After fyyovuevoK; a lacuna is probably found, which explains the change in the construction of the phrase. 13-14. For a different interpretation from that offered by Marcus, see Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 59. 14. ^evia are the "munera legatis exterarum nationum data" (Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 247). Hospitality for foreign envoys is often mentioned in Greek inscriptions preserving Roman senatus consulta beginning in the second century BCE. In addition to 7r,apaaxeiv, other verbs accompanying £evia are 5ofJvai and d7tOGxeAAeiv. Mendelssohn notices the lack of the sum ("quamquam ipsa summa memoranda erat": Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 211), but ^evia are often mentioned without the specification of the sum. See for example the senate decree concerning Pergamene land, where the envoys "[are to be provided with quarters, furnishing] and gifts according to official procedure" ([xorcov rcapoxfiv] £evid XE) (RDGE no. 12 = RGE no. 45, 129 BCE, 1. 18). The decree concerning three Greek naval captains, too, mentions gifts for the envoys, "and lodging and board be contracted for and sent by the urban quaestor" (^evid xe auxoic; Kaxd xo Sidxayua xo7tov Trapoxnv xe) (RDGE no. 22 = RGE no. 66, 78 BCE, 11. 25-26). Similarly, a decree about Mytilene states: "that Gaius Caesar imperator, if it seems best to him, should order the quaestor to let out a contract for quarters and supplies for them according to the custom of our ancestors" (RDGE no. 26, col. b = RGE no. 83, between April 46 and January/February 45 BCE, 11. 23-25). The treaty with Astypalaia mentions gifts (RDGE no. 16 A = RGE no. 53, 105 BCE, 11. 9-10), while we have only two cases in which the monetary amount of the gift is mentioned. One is the senate decree concerning Narthakion and Melitaia: "and that Gaius Hostilius, praetor, should order the quaestor to give gifts of 125 sesterces to each embassy, as might appear [to him] to be in keeping with the interest of the Republic" (RDGE no. 9 = RGE no. 38, 140 BCE or earlier, 11. 67-72).
62
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
The other is the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus, where we read: "[concerning the proposal made by the] consuls ... (it is agreed) that... (they) should instruct the urban quaestors with a view to [? registering the name of the ambassador at the Treasury] and [bid] them give and pay [subsistence allowance to the ambassador of the Plarasans and] Aphrodisians [up to the sum of...?..]" (Aphr. no. 8, 11. 73-76). For a later period, we have a letter of Antoninus Pius to a city of upper Macedonia mentioning "the travel money" to be given to the ambassadors of the city, unless they have offered to bear the expense themselves (GC no. 156, 158 CE, 11. 15-16). On public hospitality from the Roman state, see A.J. Marshall, "Friends of the Roman People", AJPh, 89, 1968, p. 55, note 37. 15. SidxaYun is the terminus technicus which translates the Latin edictum. See H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974, p. 127. Other terms used in official Roman documents are 7ip6axaY|Lia, 7tp6Ypau|ia, 8 K 0 £ | i a , 7tapdYY£^M*x, S O Y U U and 8idYpap.ua. See L. Robert, "Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias", AC, 36, 1966, pp. 407—109 and Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, p. 26. Roth suggests reading rcavxaxot instead of Ttavxa/oi) (Rom und die Hasmonder, pp. 59-60). The document is not quoted from the beginning. The first phrase lacks the verb and starts with O7ico<;, which introduces a sequence of indirect phrases, O7ico<; xd xEKva aajxofj ... dpxTJ, Kai ... Kap7u£covxai, Kai 6 dpxiepeuc;... 7r,po'ioxfjxai. Then we find two sentences in the accusative and infinitive form. This is the peculiar phraseology which appears in the central sections of Roman decrees. In the senate decree concerning Plarasa-Aphrodisias we find ouoicoc; xe dpsGKeiv xfj GVJKX^TU), xov 8fj|iov xov nAa[paaecov Kai 'A^poSeiateJtov xf]v £A,£u0£piav Kai xf|v axeXeiav ... [Kap7ti(^£a0ai] (RDGE no. 28 B, 3 9 - 3 5 BCE, 11. 6-7), and in the letter sent to Chios we read: f) O U Y K [ A , T | ] X O < ; . . . eftePaicoaev 6n(aq vouxng Kai £0£oiv Kai 8iKaioi<; x[pcov]xai (RDGE no. 70, 4/5 CE ?, 11. 14-16). It is therefore possible that in our text before onvx; we should read fj 8E cvyKXr\xoq eSoYumioe, as in RDGE no. 14, 112 BCE, 1. 20, or xf|v auYKA/nxov Kpiveiv, as in RDGE no. 22, 78 BCE, 1. 12. That this text is a part of a Roman senate decree is confirmed by the fact that on 1. 11 the document is called 8oY|ia, which is the term used in Greek inscriptions to translate the Latin senatus consultum. The same conclusion has been arrived at also by Mendelssohn and by Roth. 1
2
Our decree, however, is quoted in an extremely fragmentary way. We do not find the prescript with the date, the place and the witnesses, and we do not find the main verb of the theme. What we have here is a fragment of the 1
S e e Mason, Greek Terms (supra, commentary to 1. 15), p. 128.
2
Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 2 0 8 ; Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder,
p. 56.
2. Ant. XIV,
63
196-198
middle and final sections of the decree, which contains the order about its publication in Greek and Latin on bronze tablets. This is therefore a small fragment of an original senatus consultum, to which Josephus, or his source, may have given a kind of title in his own words. As for its content, 11. 1-3 repeat the same items which appear in document no. 1: Hyrcanus and his children are confirmed as high priests, as ethnarcs and as judges over the Jews. In particular, 11. 4 - 7 echo 11. 2 4 - 2 6 , which mention the friendship and the alliance between Hyrcanus II and Rome. The similarity of content has also been noticed by Schurer and by Rice Holmes. Moreover, it is one and the same city, Sidon, that is mentioned in the two documents as one of those which are to receive the decree concerning Hyrcanus, to insert it into their public archives and to publicize it. In document no. 1, 11. 1-10, we read: "Gaius Julius Caesar... to the magistrates, council and people of Sidon, greeting.... I am sending you a copy of the decree ... concerning Hyrcanus ... in order that it may be deposited among your public records. It is my wish that this be set up on a tablet of bronze in both Greek and Latin". Similarly we read in document no. 2, 11. 7 - 1 1 : "And that a bronze tablet containing these decrees shall be set up in the Capitol and at Sidon and Tyre and Ascalon in the temples, engraved in Latin and Greek characters". 3
The possibility may therefore be suggested that we have here a fragment of the senatus consultum which confirmed Caesar's decree quoted in document no. I . A later ratification by the Roman senate of the decrees issued by Roman magistrates was a matter of normal procedure. Many examples are provided by Greek inscriptions. Sulla gave certain rights to the Dionysiac Artists: "...I wish (you) to learn that I, in accordance with my advisory board's vote, have reached a decision (e\ie ano o\)(x(3o[u]A,io\) yvcouric; yvcouriv d7CO7ce())dv0ai): those privileges and honours ... these you shall keep". Later, an envoy came to Rome requesting an official confirmation of the senate, and accordingly, the senate passed a decree confirming the privileges. Finally, Sulla wrote again to the Dionysiac Artists, enclosing a copy of his former letter concerning the privileges and a copy of the decree passed by the senate (RDGE no. 49 B = RGE no. 62 B, 84-81 BCE). Similarly, at the conclusion of the first war against Mithridates, in 85 BCE, Sulla rewarded those cities which had remained loyal to Rome and had resisted the king of Pontus. Tabai and Stratonikeia, both in Caria, had been two of those cities and received their reward from Sulla while he was still in Asia. Some time after his return to Italy in 83 BCE, the peoples of Tabai and of Stratonikeia dispatched ambassadors to obtain senatorial confirmation of Sulla's grants. The senate approved and 4
3
Schiirer, Geschichte, I, p. 3 4 6 , note 24; Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, p. 507. See Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 195; Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", pp. 128, 179. 4
64
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
passed decrees of confirmation. Tabai and Stratonikeia in turn erected the inscriptions in commemoration of the event preserved in RDGE nos. 17, 18. No. 17, as we have it today, is a short portion of the decree of the senate, which states: "...it was also agreed that the senate and the people of Rome accepted that what L. Cornelius Sulla Imperator granted with the approval of his consilium as a reward for the bravery and respect (for us) of the Tabenes was rightly and [properly] and deservedly given [and granted] them...". No. 18 contains the letter written by Lucius Cornelius Sulla to the magistrates of Stratonikeia which specified the rights and privileges given to the city in reward for its alliance in the war against Mithridates. Then the decree of the senate is quoted, which was passed some years later, confirming the rights given by Sulla. Other parallels may be seen in the confirmation by the senate of Sulla's decree concerning a gift of land given to Oropos {RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 11. 38-4-2, 73 BCE) and in a letter sent by Caesar to the magistrates of Mytilene between 46 and 45 BCE accompanying an alleged decree of the senate confirming rights and privileges previously given to the city. Then the decree itself is quoted (RDGE no. 26 = RGE no. 83). Another parallel is the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus issued in 39 BCE, which confirms not only the grants which had been given to the community by Octavian and Marcus Antonius, but also those which may be granted by them in future: "and all those rewards, honours and privileges which C. Caesar or M. Antonius, Triumviri Reipublicae Constituendae, have given or shall give, have allotted or shall allot, have conceded or shall concede by their own decree to the people of Plarasa Aphrodisias, all these should be accepted as having come about duly and regularly": Aphr. no. 8,11. 4 8 - 5 1 . 5
The senate's decree gave additional legal force to the decrees issued by the magistrates. Although in strict theory a decree of the senate was merely advice to the magistrate who requested it, the peculiar nature of the Roman senate during the republic made it de facto much more than that. The senate controlled the entire state. The result was that senatus consulta were felt to be binding already in republican times. By the time of the early empire, they had acquired the full force of law. Our case is similar. In June 47 Caesar issued a decree which recognized both the position of Hyrcanus II as ethnarch and High Priest of the Jews and the ancestral rights of the Jews. The decree also established that Hyrcanus and his children would be Roman allies and be numbered among Rome's particular friends (document no. 1,11. 21-30). Some months later, when Caesar arrived 6
7
5
S e e M. Crawford, Joyce Reynolds, "Rome and Tabae", GRBS, 15, 1974, pp. 2 8 9 - 2 9 3 . See G. Crifo, "Attivita normativa del senato in eta repubblicana", BIDR, 7 1 , 1968, pp. 31-115. See Sherk, RDGE, pp. 4 - 5 . 6
7
2. Ant. XIV,
196-198
65
at Rome, "Hyrcanus sent to him with the request that he should confirm the friendship and alliance with him", as we learn from Ant. XIV, 185. Whether they obtained their request, however, is doubtful. Roth is the only scholar to notice the peculiar phraseology which appears in 11. 4 - 7 , where an embassy is mentioned which will have to "discuss terms of friendship and alliance" with Hyrcanus. This, Roth maintains, may be a proof that the request of the Jews to establish a ou|xuaxia with the Roman people was temporarily rejected by the Roman senate. Maybe the Roman senate wanted to check the situation in loco, independently from the description given by Caesar. "The opposition in the senate never ceased completely. In fact, we see that Caesar's decree limits itself to calling Hyrcanus and his children ovujiaKoi and tyiXoi (document no. 1, 11. 24-26), on a personal level, and does not mention any o\)|Lnj.a%ia between the the Jews and the Roman senate". The main new information which appears in this fragment concerns the recognition of Hyrcanus as protector of the Jews "who are unjustly treated", which may be an interpretation by the Roman senate of Caesar's grant to Hyrcanus to decide "concerning the Jews' manner of life" (document no. 1,11. 28-30). Which Jews the text refers to is not stated explictly. Buchler suggests that Hyrcanus "is the head of all the Jews", and Rosenthal points out that this is the first time that a Jewish leader and high priest is recognized as an official representative of all the Jews, diaspora included. Specific political reasons could have brought Caesar to attach a particular political task to diaspora J e w s . This is also the view found in modern research: Hyrcanus seems to have been "protector for the Jewish people as a whole", as Rajak points out; an interpretation which is also found in the works by Zucker, Schalit, Piattelli, Habas and Stern. In fact, if the Jews mentioned here were only those living in Judaea, it would be difficult to understand why, after Caesar's death, the right to live according to Jewish laws and customs is mentioned in relation to diaspora Jews in almost all the Roman documents quoted by Josephus. Moreover, it is surely meaningful in this context that several years later Hyrcanus could intercede on behalf of diaspora Jews. In 43 BCE, four years after this senate decree was issued, Hyrcanus sent 8
9
10
11
12
8
Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, pp. 5 7 - 5 9 . "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", p. 9 8 . Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", pp. 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 , 2 2 4 ; see also J.A. Hild, "Les Juifs devant l'opinion romaine", REJ, 8, 1884, pp. 3 3 - 3 5 and M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee (supra, commentary to 1. 9), p. 9 1 . "Jewish Rights", p. 24. Bibliographical details of Zucker's and Schalit's works appear in Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 8, note 55; Piattelli, "An Enquiry", p. 220; eadem, Concezioni giuridiche e metodi costruttivi dei giuristi orientali, Milano 1981, p. 69; Ephrat Habas, The Patriarch in the Roman-Byzantine Era: the Making of a Dynasty (Heb.), Ph.D., Tel Aviv University 1992, pp. 3 8 - 7 4 (forthcoming in the E.J. Brill Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums series) and Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 2 4 0 . 9
1 0
1 1
1 2
66
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
envoys to Ephesos "requesting from Dolabella, who was then governor of Asia, to exempt the Jews from military service and permit them to maintain their native customs and live in accordance with them" (Ant. XIV, 223). And at a time which is impossible to date, a letter written by the Greek magistrates of Laodicea to the Roman local official, Gaius Rabirius, mentions the fact that "certain persons have come from Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, bringing documents concerning their people, to the effect that it shall be lawful for them to observe their Sabbaths and perform their other rites in accordance with their native laws" (document no. 17, 11. 5-7). These interventions had probably been made possible thanks to the right xcov 'IovSaicov rcpo'ioxfjxai xcov d8iKOU|i£vcov granted to Hyrcanus, which is mentioned in our fragmentary senate decree. 13
As for the date in which our senatus consultum was passed, from Josephus' comment in par. 185 we get the impression that it was the same Caesar who brought the matter before the Roman senate, which would mean that the senate decree was passed while Caesar himself was at Rome: not after he left for Africa, as maintained by Rosenthal, and not after he came back from Africa in 46, as maintained by Mendelssohn. Now we know that he left Syria at the beginning of July 47 BCE, entered Pontus on July 29 and moved against Pharnaces. The decisive campaign took place at Zela on August 2. Then Caesar moved through Galatia and Bithynia into the province of Asia, settling internal affairs there. At the beginning of September he embarked for Italy, arriving at Tarentum about September 2 4 . When exactly he arrived at Rome we do not know, but if we use Rice Holmes' table of distances in Roman miles, modern kilometres and ancient sources' testimony, nine or ten days probably elapsed from the moment in which Caesar landed at Tarentum and moved to Brundisium to the moment he reached Rome. This means that he arrived at Rome at the beginning of October. Saulnier suggests that it was the first of October. 14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
In Rome, Caesar found the envoys sent by Hyrcanus waiting for him, as we learn from Ant. XIV, 1 8 5 . 21
1 3
S e e P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, pp. 1 7 - 1 8 . S e e also Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 5 6 . "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 179. "Senati Consulta", pp. 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 . S e e the sources quoted by Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, III, pp. 2 1 0 - 2 1 5 , 2 3 1 - 2 . Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, III, pp. 3 7 5 - 6 . S e e the sources quoted by M. Gelzer, Caesar: Politician and Statesman, Oxford 1968, p. 2 6 1 , note 4. "Lois romaines", p. 171. S e e Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, III, p. 507. On the "scores of ambassadors w h o c a m e from the East to R o m e at that time" and on the many senatus consulta regulating the affairs of the East which were submitted to the vote see Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, II, p. 9 9 9 . 1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2. Ant. XIV,
67
196-198
If the senate decree was passed while Caesar was at Rome, the beginning of October may be the terminus post quern for our fragment. As for the terminus ante quern, it may be identified with some point before the end of November, when Caesar left Rome and embarked for his African campaign. We find him at Lilybaeum, at the extreme western corner of Sicily, on December 17 (De Bello Africo, 1), which means that he had left Rome towards the end of November. October and November therefore constitute a possible date for our decree. The possibility of better determining the date is provided by document no. 5, if it also belongs to the same senatus consultum. In document no. 5,1. 1, Caesar is called a\)TOKpdxcop TO bevxepov in the Greek manuscripts, and dictator in the Latin manuscript, hence Niese's suggestion that we should read, here oroTOKpdTCop 8iKTaTC0p TO 5et)Tepov (see document no. 5, commentary to 1. 1). This rules out the possibility of dating our senatus consultum to November, when Caesar was no longer "dictator for the second time" (a title that he had in 48, late in October, for one y e a r . It follows that the end of October 47 BCE, when the second dictatorship of Caesar expired, is the terminus ante quern in which our senatus consultum was issued. 22
23
24
In conclusion, document no. 1 and document no. 2 probably belong to the same complex of documents: a letter (par. 190-191) accompanying the decree issued by Caesar in June 47 (par. 192-195), and then a fragment of the senatus consultum which confirms it, in October of the same year (par. 196-198).
2 2
2 3
2 4
Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, S e e below, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 . MRR, II, p. 2 7 2 .
III, pp. 2 3 6 , 5 4 0 , note 1.
3. Ant. X I V , 199 October 4 7 B C E (?)
This may be a fragmentary section of a senatus consultum confirming Caesar's decisions concerning Hyrcanus II and the Jews.
Bibliography J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro ludaeis facta e Iosepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 2 7 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 0 6 - 2 1 0 ; W. Judeich, Caesar im Orient, Leipzig 1885, p. 139; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 99; A. Biichler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten und die romischen Steuern in den Erlassen Caesars", Festschrift zum Achtzigsten Geburstage Moritz Steinschneider's, Leipzig 1896, p. 9 4 = Studies in Jewish History: the Adolf Buchler Memorial Volume, ed. I. Brodie, J. Rabbinowitz, London 1956, p. 7; E. Schiirer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I, Leipzig 1901, p. 346; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, p. 162; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 139; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, Leipzig 1914, pp. 6 0 - 6 1 ; A. Momigliano, "Ricerdie sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano," ASNP, ser. I, 3 , 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 1 1 - 1 2 = 1 9 3 - 4 , 18=200; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 9 1 ; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 272; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1979, p. 219; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 8 8 , 1981, pp. 1 7 1 - 2 , 196; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?",7/?S, 7 4 , 1984, p. 117; M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Hebr.), ed. D.R. Schwartz, Jerusalem 1995, p. 2 3 4 , note 1; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Caesar's Decrees in the Antiquities: Josephus' Forgeries or Authentic Roman Senatus Consulta!", Athenaeum, 8 4 , 1996, pp. 7 9 - 8 1 ; eadem, "Ant. X I V , 1 8 5 - 2 6 7 : A Problem of Authenticity", in: CSS, pp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 .
199
(x. 4)
Tdioq Kaioap auxoKpaxcop SiKxdxcop i m a -
xo<; xiufjc; Kai dpexfjc; Kai (|)i?iav0pco7ria<; EVEKEV ODV-
£%c6pr)G£v e m ot)|i(|)£povTi xf\q cruyKAriiou Kai xofj 5fjuoD xov 'Pcojiaicov TpKavov 'AAe^avSpoti viov avxov XE Kai xd xEKva ai)xo\) d p ^ i e p e i ^ XE Kai 1.
8iKxaxcop om. Lat.
3.
xfjc; avyKA,r|Tot>] Kai (om. Kai FL) xfj at>YK?in.xcp PFL.
3-4. xofi 8T||J.OD] xco 8r|jx(p P. 4. xcov PV. erci crup.<|)epovxi Kai xfj a\)yKA.f|xcp Kai xco STUCCO xcov 'Pcouaicov Niese.
5
3. Ant. XIV,
69
199
iepeic; 'IepoooA/ouxov Kai xou £0vou<; e l v a i ejci xoic; 8iKaioi<; Kai vouiuoig oic; Kai oi Ttpoyovoi auxcov xfjv iepcoai)vr|v SiaKaxea^ov. 7. 8.
Kai vouiuoic; om. P. Kai vouiuoiq olc; F L A M V . iepcoativriv aikwv SiaKateaxov FLAM; iepocruvr|v 8vaKaxeaxov V. apxiepoxruvriv P.
Translation Gaius Caesar, Imperator, Dictator and Consul, in recognition of the honour and virtue and benevplence of Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and in the interest of the senate and of the people of Rome, has granted that both he and his sons shall be high priests and priests of Jerusalem and of their people with the same rights and regulations under which their forefathers held the office of priest. 1
1
"nation": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 5 3 .
Commentary 1-2. Here too, as in document no. 2, we do not find the numbers of the consulship and of the dictatorship of Caesar. But the situation is different from that reflected in document no. 2, since here the words which follow Caesar's titles, xiufjc; Kai dpexfjc; Kai (J)iA,av0pco7uac; E V E K E V , do find parallels in known official Roman decrees. See the documents listed by Sherk, RDGE, pp. 370, 383, and below, pp. 7 0 - 7 1 . 2. Hyrcanus' xiufjc; Kai dpexfjq Kai <|)iA,av0pco7ua<; are the reason which prompts Caesar to bestow grants upon him and his descendants. Similar expressions are also found in the decree of Octavian conferring rights and privileges on Seleucus of Rhosos: "[Since Seleu]cus ... has campaigned with us,... has on our behalf suffered many great hardships, has faced danger without flinching from any terror in his steadfastness, has exhibited [complete] affection and loyalty for the Republic..." (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, letter II, 11. 12-15). Benner observes that in this last case "the heading is followed by a series of causal clauses dealing with services rendered by Seleucus to Octavian during campaigns; they serve as motivation by showing that he is worthy of gratia. As they relate the circumstances leading up to the decision, they are to be regarded as a narratio''' (Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, p. 55). 2 - 3 . oDy/copeco is a technical verb which means "to grant rights and privileges". We find it in the letter of Cornelius Dolabella to Thasos (RDGE no. 21, 80 BCE = RGE no. 64, 1. 17), in the senatus consulta concerning Mytilene (RDGE no. 26, col. b, 46/45 BCE = RGE no. 83, 11. 18, 22, 32),
70
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Plarasa-Aphrodisias {RDGE no. 28 B, 39/38 BCE = RGE no. 87,1. 5; see also Aphr. no. 8, 1. 37) and in the senatus consultum de rebus Stratonicensium (RDGE no. 30, first century BCE, 1. 2). The same verb also appears in Caesar's decree confirming the right of asylum to the temple of Artemis at Sardis (SEG XXXIX, 1989, no. 1290, 11. 44, 57, 7 0 - 7 1 , 74-75) and in the letter of Marcus Antonius to the KOIVOV of Asia (RDGE no. 57 = RGE no. 85, 42/41 or 33/32 BCE, 11. 18, 19). 3. The word Gt>YKAr|xo<; often appears coupled with 8fjuo<; xcov 'Pcouaicov in Roman official documents. See RDGE nos. 20 E, 1. 9; 21, col. 1,1. 4; 22,1. 11; 48, 1. 12. 5. Hyrcanus and his descendants are recognized as leaders not only of a geographical place, Jerusalem, but also of the Jewish eGvot;. See above, document no. 2, pp. 6 5 - 6 6 . On the political implications of these grants, see Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 38-43; Schurer, The History, p. 273, note 23; Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, pp. 7 - 1 1 . 6. Buchler observes that the permission given to Hyrcanus to receive payments in money and in kind in spite of the fact that the country belonged to the Romans was a huge concession on the part of Rome ("Die priesterlichen Zehnten", p. 94). This is also what Josephus has Titus say: "We allowed you to occupy this land and set over you kings of your own blood; then we maintained the laws of your forefathers and permitted you, not only among yourselves but also in your dealings with others, to live as you willed; above all, we permitted you to exact tribute for God and to collect offerings..." (Bell. VI, 2 3 3 ^ ) . We must recall however that the Roman consideration for the Jews is by no means exceptional. On similar rights bestowed on peoples living under Roman rule, see below, pp. 461-467. Caesar is called "Imperator, Dictator and Consul" without the numbers of the dictatorship and of the consulship, which is unusual. Roth suggests that the whole text which appears in par. 199 is not a real Roman document, while Viereck maintains that the first phrase only was added by Josephus to an existing document: "Praescripta Tdioc; Kaioap a Iosepho ficta sunt". At close examination however, it appears that here the opening phrase definitely appears as an integral part of the text which follows, and not as a separate phrase added with the purpose of introducing the document, as in document no. 2. Moreover, what follows is a standard expression which often appears in Roman official documents. A different explanation is therefore called for. One possibility is that the missing numbers of the dictatorship and of the consulship of Caesar were dropped during the process of copying the document. From Caesar's to Josephus' time, more than one hundred years 1
2
1
2
Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, Sermo graecus,
pp. 6 0 - 6 1 .
p. 9 9 . This v i e w is shared in my essay "Ant. XIV, 1 9 0 - 2 6 4 " , p. 2 0 2 .
3. Ant. XIV,
71
199
had elapsed. The numbers could have been copied in an unclear way and subsequently disregarded in the next copy of the document, as often happens also in inscriptions and papyri. Concerning a similar case in which the number of the consulship is lacking, Rajak observes that "this may be the result of a complex transmission process, and does not constitute an argument for the spuriousness of the text". The date of this document is difficult to establish. Caesar is called both dictator and consul, which happened five times: in 48, 46, 45 and 44 B C E . Each of these dates is therefore theoretically possible. That is why Saulnier has suggested the year 49/48, Momigliano the year 48, and other scholars the years 47 and 4 4 . , A late date, 44 BCE for example, as suggested by Judeich, is not theoretically impossible, since from document no. 8,11. 2 4 - 2 5 , we know that a senatus consultum confirming Caesar's decisions about Hyrcanus II and the Jews was passed in this year. The content of our fragment, however, is very close to that of documents no. 1 and 2, where too Hyrcanus and his sons are recognized as "high priests of Jerusalem and of their people with the same rights and regulations under which their forefathers held the office of priest". The similarity of the content therefore suggests an early date. Viereck suggests 47 BCE, and a connection between this fragment and document no. 1 has been noticed by Schurer, while Mendelssohn links this fragment with document no. 2 . 3
4
5
6
7
8
Momigliano considers meaningful the fact that among the titles given to Hyrcanus by Caesar we do not find the title "ethnarch". This omission leads him to conclude that this has to be the oldest of Caesar's decrees about the Jews, issued in October-December 48 B C E , a view accepted by Vermes-Millar and by Saulnier. As for the fact that Caesar bestows rights upon Hyrcanus before his help in the Alexandrian campaign, which appears strange at first sight, Momigliano explains: "It may appear strange that Caesar recognized Hyrcanus as high priest as soon as he arrived in Egypt, before the help he would receive from him the following spring. But this is not strange 9
10
3
Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. I l l , note 84. S e e below, pp. 3 5 9 - 3 6 0 , 3 6 3 ,
365. 4
MRR, II, pp. 187, 2 7 2 , 2 9 3 , 3 0 4 , 315; MRR, Supplement, 1960, p. 31 for the consulships and MRR, II, pp. 2 5 6 , 2 7 2 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 4 , 305, 3 1 7 - 8 for the dictatorships. Saulnier,"Lois romaines",pp. 1 7 1 - 2 , 196; M o m i g l i a n o , " R i c e r c h e " p p . 1 1 - 1 2 = 1 9 3 - 4 ; Schurer, Geschichte, p. 346, note 24; Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 5 3 , note d. Caesar, p. 139. Geschichte, p. 3 4 6 , note 2 4 . Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 2 0 8 . "Ricerche", note 3, pp. 12=194. Schiirer, The History, I, p. 2 7 4 , note 23; Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 171. 5
6
7
8
9
1 0
72
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
in fact, because at that moment Caesar wanted to ensure Hyrcanus' support in advance. This is why Hyrcanus later came to his assistance". In favor of Momigliano's theory there is the fact that Caesar is called "consul", which unmistakably points to 48 BCE. An argumentum ex silentio, however, such as the omission of the term "ethnarch", is always an unsure foundation to build upon, and one might also imagine that the title "ethnarch" could have appeared in one of the following sentences of the document which is not quoted by Josephus. Moreover, it was not usual for Roman commanders to grant rights to conquered peoples before their political loyalty was clearly demonstrated. In any case, it is clear that our document is not a decree issued by Caesar while staying in Egypt. The formal features of the text leave no doubt. Caesar is mentioned in the third person and his decisions about Hyrcanus II are recorded in the past tense (rdioc; Kaioap ... ouvexcopnoev). Moreover, it states that Caesar's decisions have been made "in the interest of the senate and people of Rome". This means that our text is not a decree issued by Caesar but its confirmation by the Roman senate at a later date, as Mendelssohn and Schurer have already observed. This does not rule out the possibility suggested by Momigliano, that Caesar issued a decree in favor of Hyrcanus while staying in Egypt in 48 BCE. It means only that its ratification by the senate, which appears in our document, probably took place only later, most likely after Caesar returned to Rome, in October of 47 BCE. A confirmation of the fact that the senatus consultum took place in 47 may be seen in the fact that one of the reasons for the grants bestowed by Caesar upon Hyrcanus is his dpexr| (1. 2), which he (or Antipater) had many opportunities to show Caesar during his Alexandrian campaign. See above, document no, 1, commentary to 11. 16-17. This confirmation by the senate could have incorporated decisions taken by Caesar on different occasions and at different times. Caesar may have issued two decrees concerning the Jews, one in 48, after arriving in Egypt (if we follow the political considerations suggested by Momigliano), and one in the summer of 47, as a reward for the military help during the Alexandrian campaign. Both decrees could have been confirmed by the senate in October of 47 BCE. A connection between documents no. 2 and no. 3, where no. 3 would represent the older one, has already been suggested by Krebs and by Mendelssohn. 11
12
13
1 1
"Ricerche", p. 12=194. On the rights bestowed by Caesar upon Ilium, Pergamum and Ephesus in 48 B C E , see Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, I, p. 9 9 6 and D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I, Princeton 1950, pp. 4 0 5 ^ 0 6 ; II, p. 1258, note 3. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 208; Schiirer, Geschichte, p. 3 4 6 , note 24. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 227; Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", pp. 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 . See also the reconstruction of the w h o l e senatus consultum offered by Mendelssohn on pp. 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 and Juster, Les Juifs, p. 139. 1 2
1 3
3. Ant. XIV,
199
73
If we follow Momigliano, we may see in our document the section of the senatus consultum where the senate confirms the first of the two decrees, that issued by Caesar in the winter of October 48 BCE. In this case, the fact that the title "ethnarch" is missing is significant, as Momigliano maintains, as is the fact that Caesar is called "consul": both would reflect the situation obtaining at the moment in which Caesar issued his decree.
4. Ant. X I V , 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 4 4 B C E (February 9?)
This is probably a fragment of a senatus consultum which grants a reduction of tax and confirms Caesar's permission to Hyrcanus, high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, to fortify and occupy Jerusalem.
Bibliography J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro ludaeis facta e losepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768, pp. 1 6 8 - 1 8 4 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 , 2 0 2 ; B. N i e s e , "Bemerkungen iiber die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeol. B. XIII. XIV. XVI.", Hermes, 11, 1876, p. 4 8 7 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, pp. 179, 3 0 4 , 314; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 99; A. Schlatter, Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palastinas, Calw-Stuttgart 1893, p. 3 2 3 ; E. Schiirer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I, Leipzig 1901, p. 346; M. R o s t o w z e w , Geschichte der Staatspacht in der romischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian, Leipzig 1902, p. 4 7 7 ; H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, III, 1, Leipzig 1905, p. 175; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, pp. 162, 172, 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 140; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, Leipzig 1914, pp. 6 1 - 6 3 ; T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, III, N e w York 1967 (first ed. 1923), p. 508; A. Momigliano, "Ricerche sull' organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano," ASNP, ser. I, 3, 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 16=198, 19=201; A. Buchler, Studies in Jewish History: the Adolf Buchler Memorial Volume, ed. I. Brodie, J. Rabbinowitz, London 1956, pp. 1 7 - 1 8 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, pp. 1 0 4 - 5 ; E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, X V L 1969, p. 1062; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 4 2 ; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 2 7 3 , note 23; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 173, 197; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 77; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 117; M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Hebr.), ed. D.R. Schwartz, Jerusalem 1995, p. 2 3 8 , note 12; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Caesar's decrees in the Antiquities: Josephus' Forgeries or Authentic Roman Senatus Consulta!", Athenaeum, 84, 1996, pp. 8 1 - 8 2 ; eadem, "Ant. XIV, 1 8 5 - 2 6 7 : A Problem of Authenticity", in: CSS, pp. 202-203.
200
(x. 5) rdio<; Kaioap xmaxoc, xo rceuTixov e i c p i v e xouxoix; e ^ e i v Kai xei%iaai xrjv lepoaoA/uuixcov 1. 8et>xepov coni. Ritschl: xpixov coni. Petitus ap. Hudson.
4. Ant. XIV,
201
75
200-201
7i6A,iv, Kai Kax£%£iv auxfiv TpKavov 'Ate^avSpou dpxi£p£a Io\)8aicov Kai £9vdp%r|v (bq dv avxoq Tipoaipfjxai. 67cco<; XE 'IcuSaioiq EV xco 8£DX£pcp xfjc; uiaGcoaECOc; exei xfjc; 7cpoa68o\) Kopov i)7cec;£?icovxai Kai ur|X£ £pYoX,a(3cooi XIVEC; UT)XE ^opovc; xo\)<; auxovq x£^coaiv.
5
6. e x i F: om. P quo duce seel. Niese.
6. Kopouq Lowthius. 6. Tfjc; ... wte^eAxovTCxi] ex reditibus chori id est triginta modii subducantur Lat.
Translation Gaius Caesar, Consul for the fifth time, has decreed that these men shall receive and fortify the city of Jerusalem, and that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, shall occupy it as he himself may choose. And that in the second year of the rent-term one kor shall be deducted from the tax paid by the Jews, and no one shall make profit out of them, nor shall they pay the same tribute.
Commentary 1. Caesar was consul for the fourth time in 44 BCE (MRR, II, p. 315). In this year, Caesar was also dictator, but this title is not mentioned in the text (see Baumann, Rom und die Juden, p. 77, note 28). On the problems concerning the date of this text, see below, pp. 7 8 - 7 9 . 1. £Kpiv£ often appears in official documents issued by Roman magistrates in the republican age. See RDGE nos. 22, 11. 12, 19; 54, 1. 15; 58, 11. 56, 57, 70. The verb emKpivco also appears in document no. 1,1. 12. 2. There is no one to whom xotixcuc; may be referring in this text; this makes it clear that this phrase does not represent the beginning of the document, but a middle section of it. As for the identification of the persons referred to, Smallwood suggests that xouxoix; may refer to the Jews, who could be mentioned in the part of the document which Josephus does not quote (The Jews, p. 42, note 68). According to Rosenthal, xouxouc; probably refers to Antipater and Hyrcanus: "it does not refer to Hyrcanus' children simply because he had no children" (Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars" p. 304). This, however, is by no means conclusive. More than once, the documents quoted by Josephus do refer to Hyrcanus' children. His XEKVO are mentioned in document no. 1, 11. 21, 28, in no. 2, 1. 1 and in no. 5, 1. 9; and his 7tai8£<; are mentioned in document no. 1, 1. 24 and in no. 5, 11. 22, 42. Caesar and the Roman senate may not have been aware that Hyrcanus had no sons (see above, document no. 1, 1. 21), and in any case the matter probably had no
76
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
real importance. The phrase was a stereotypical one, which was often used in an automatic way in official Roman decrees. See for example that issued by Octavian in favour of Seleucus of Rhosos (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, letter II, 11. 19, 60), where Seleucus' children are mentioned as recipients of rights in spite of the fact that he had no children and in fact was not yet married at the time in which the decree was issued. 2 - 3 . The walls of Jerusalem had been destroyed in Pompey's days (see Ant. XIV, 144, 156. See also Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 214, note 23). The importance of the building of the walls is stressed by Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 314. See also Taubler, Imperium Romanum, p. 172. For a possible explanation of the apparent contradiction between this line and other passages of the Antiquities, see below, pp. 78-79. 5. On the function of o^coc; in the senatus consulta, see above, document no. 2, commentary to 1. 1. 6. xfjc; |iia9c6a£Cu<;: "de locatione interdum uiaOcoaic; est ipsa pecunia, pro conductis agris pendenda" (Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, pp. 176-179). The term was probably taken over from Ptolemaic usage. See the bibliography quoted by Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 555, note d). A UIG0C6O£CO<; vofxoc; is mentioned in the senatus consultum dealing with Oropos and the publicans (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 73 BCE, 11. 19, 25, 33, 35, 66). According to Mendelssohn, originally these words must have preceded all Caesar's new decisions concerning the taxation of the Jews. He also suggests that the one responsible for the collection of the taxes must have been Antipater and his emissaries (Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", respectively p. 199 and p. 202). See also Schlatter, Zur Topographie, p. 323 on the uiaGcoaic; imposed later by Augustus on territories in Lebanon. 6. In Ant. XV, 314 Josephus states that the Jewish measure kor equals ten Attic fie8i[ivoi (where the |i.e8iuvo<; was about a bushel and a half). This contradicts what Josephus himself writes in Ant. Ill, 321, namely, that 70 Kopoi are equal to 41 Attic |ie8iuvoi, which would make 1 kor equal c. 4/7 of a jieSiuvoc;. Actually, the kor equals about 7 Attic ueSiuvoi (see Marcus in the Loeb ed., IV, p. 475, note c and VIII, p. 150, note a) and corresponds to 370 litres. Marcus observes that "either the Romans used the Hebrew name or Josephus, or his source, has substituted the Hebrew name for the Greek" (Loeb ed., VII, p. 555, note e). The first explanation seems the most probable one. When grants and privileges were requested, written petitions were handed over by peoples, cities or individuals to the Roman magistrates, which specified their requests. If in the petition which the Jews delivered to Caesar the requested reduction of taxes was expressed in the measure in use in Judaea, there was no reason to change it. To change it would have required to find out the exact equivalent in Roman measures; moreover, the use of a Roman measure would surely have caused a problem, when the exact amount of the reduction would have had to be figured out in Judaea. (It is interesting
4. Ant. XIV,
77
200-201
in this context to recall that in the edict issued by the triumvirs Lepidus, Antony and Octavian in which they announce the proscriptions quoted by Appian, Bell.Civ. IV, 2, 8 - 1 1 , the money which is to be paid to anyone killing a proscribed person is converted into Attic drachmae: "Let those who kill the proscribed bring us their heads and receive the following rewards: to a free man 25,000 Attic drachmas per head; to a slave his freedom and 10,000 Attic drachmas and his master's right of citizenship" (Bell.Civ. IV, 2, 11). See Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, p. 47. Before the word Kopov a number may have originally appeared in the text, that is, the amount of kor which had to be,deducted from the tax paid by the Jews; otherwise we would not understand why the verb is used in its plural form. The meaning is clearly plural, but, in Hebrew, the form of kor was possibly used in singular, invariable fashion, from which the Greek Kopov was formed, which probably meant Kopoix;, as Lowthius suggests reading here. Kopov (or Kopouq) seems to be the subject of i)7uec;eA,covTai "...kor shall be deducted", and riot "they shall deduct a kor", as translated by Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 104 (who identifies the subject of the verb with "the tax farmers (publicaniy: p. 105, note 2). That the publicani were not responsible for the collection of the taxes in Judaea in these years we learn from document no. 5, from 47 BCE. See below, pp. 90, 9 7 - 9 8 . 7. Krebs observes: "qui vero opera publica facienda, aut instauranda redimunt, et conducunt epyoXdfJoi dicuntur" (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 179-182). According to Roth, the subject of epyoAxxPcoci is officials under Roman control (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 62). According to Johnson et al., this expression "probably concerns the tax on occupations and trades" (Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 105, note 4). 7 - 8 . On these ^opouc;, see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, pp. 182-184. Caesar is spoken of in the third person and his decisions are mentioned in the past tense (rdioc; Ktxiaap ... eicpive). The first phrase is formulated in the accusative and infinitive form and is introduced by eicpive, while the following ones are introduced by 67rcoc;. This is the common phraseology which appears in the central part of Roman senatus consulta. It therefore appears that here, too, as in documents nos. 2 and 3, the senate is confirming previous decisions made by Caesar concerning the Jews. This confirmation was issued in 44 BCE, when Caesar was consul for the fourth time. Now from document no. 8, 11. 2 4 - 2 5 , we know that a senatus consultum was passed in 44, and precisely on February 9, confirming Caesar's decisions about the Jews. Since it is doubtful whether in the same 1
1
On ratifications by the Roman senate of decrees issued by Roman magistrates, see above, pp. 6 3 - 6 4
78
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
year two senatus consulta were issued dealing with the Jews, our fragment may possibly represent a section of this senate decree. As for the content, Roth observes that the sequence of the three subjects in this document makes no sense, and suggests a different possible order, but it is difficult to be certain about this, due to the absence of the previous and following sections of the text. The right to fortify Jerusalem mentioned on 11. 1-3 contradicts what is stated in Bell. I, 199-201, and in Ant. XIV, 144, 156, where we read that the fortification of Jerusalem had already been granted by Caesar in 47 BCE — a contradiction already observed by Krebs and by Schiirer. Niese solves the difficulty by suggesting that the permission was given by Caesar in 47 orally, and then in 44 officially, an explanation rejected by Baumann. Also not to be ruled out is the possibility that some of the grants bestowed upon Hyrcanus by Caesar in 47 BCE were mentioned once more in a confirmation by the Roman senate issued in 44 BCE, together with other, more recent decisions. Other scholars have maintained that the text must be emended, and we should read "second" or "third" instead of the "fifth consulate", which would bring us to 48 or 46 BCE. Mendelssohn, too, maintains that the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem was given by Caesar in 47, at the same time in which he gave to Hyrcanus the decree preserved in document no. I . There is, however, no real necessity of emending the text. Moehring is surely correct when he cites this case as one of the examples of incorrect methods used by scholars dealing with the documents quoted by Josephus: "the very fact that the text of most of the documents is corrupt has been used by interpreters as a pretext for the introduction of textual emendations not obviously demanded by a specific textual corruption, but required to make the passage yield the desired sense and to fit it into a preestablished historical framework". Moehring is certainly correct, and in our case there is no need for an emendation if we follow Momigliano, who suggests that in reality the 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
See also Schurer, The History, p. 2 7 3 , note 2 3 . Schurer, Geschichte, p. 3 4 6 , suggests that the Jewish e n v o y s had been sent to R o m e towards the end of 45 BCE. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 6 3 . Krebs, Decreta Romanorum. pp. 1 6 8 - 9 ; Schurer, Geschichte, p. 3 4 6 , note 24. "Bemerkungen iiber die Urkunden", p. 4 8 7 . Baumann, Rom und die Juden, p. 7 7 , note 28. S e e Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, p. 5 0 8 and Schurer, The History, I, p. 2 7 3 , note 2 3 . A s is suggested rispectively by Ritschl and by Petitus, w h o is followed by Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 170. "Senati Consulta", p. 197. Against these possibilities, see Taubler, Imperium Romanum, p. 174. H.R. Moehring, "The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus", in: Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, III, ed. J. Neusner, Leiden 1975, pp. 137-138. 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
4. Ant. XIV,
79
200-201 11
right to fortify Jerusalem was granted only in 44 B C E . In this case, Bell. I, 199-201 and Ant. XIV, 144, 156 reflect Nicolaus' version of the facts. In order to emphasize the importance of Antipater, the fortification of Jerusalem may have been made to appear a consequence of the valorous behavior of Antipater in the Alexandrian campaign of 47 B C E . As for the reduction of taxes, the extreme fragmentary state of the text makes it difficult to understand its real meaning. As Smallwood observes, we may wonder: one kor in how m a n y ? Marcus suggests that "if the 'second year of the rent-term' here coincides with a sabbatical year, as one naturally supposes, it confirms the dating of the document to 44 BCE, as the sabbatical year would be that which extended from October 44 to October 43 B C E " . 12
13
14
1 1
"Ricerche", p. 16=198. See D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on Hyrcanus II", in: Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, pp. 2 1 0 - 2 3 2 . Smallwood, The Jews, p. 4 2 , note 68. Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 5 5 , note d. See also B.Z. Wacholder, "The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second T e m p l e and the Early Rabbinic Period", HUCA, 4 4 , 1973, pp. 1 5 3 - 1 9 6 and Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 104. 1 2
1 3
1 4
5. Ant. X I V , 2 0 2 - 2 1 0 October 4 7 B C E (?)
This may be another fragment of the senatus consultant passed in October 47 BCE which confirmed Caesar's decisions concerning Hyrcanus II and the Jews.
Bibliography J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro ludaeis facta e Iosepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768, pp. 2 5 2 - 2 8 1 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 9 8 - 2 0 6 ; 2 3 2 - 2 3 7 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, pp. 179, 3 0 0 - 3 1 3 ; W. Judeich, Caesar im Orient, Leipzig 1885, p. 140; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 1 ; A. Schlatter, Zur Topographie undGeschichte Paldstinas, Calw-Stuttgart 1893, pp. 3 2 1 - 3 2 2 ; A. Buchler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten und die romischen Steuern in den Erlassen Caesars", Festschrift zum Achtzigsten Geburstage Moritz Steinschneider's, Leipzig 1896, pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 4 = Studies in Jewish History: the Adolf Buchler Memorial Volume, ed. I. Brodie, J. Rabbinowitz, London 1956, pp. 1 3 - 1 5 ; E. Schurer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I, Leipzig 1901, pp. 3 4 6 - 3 4 7 ; M. R o s t o w z e w , Geschichte der Staatspacht in der romischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian, Leipzig 1902, pp. 4 7 6 - 4 7 8 ; H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, III, 1, Leipzig 1905, p. 175; T. M o m m s e n , Romische Geschichte, V, Berlin 1909, pp. 5 0 1 - 5 0 2 ; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, pp. 162, 173; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans lempire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 ; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonaer, Leipzig 1914, pp. 6 5 - 7 2 ; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, p. 180; T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, III, N e w York 1967 (first ed. 1923), pp. 5 0 7 - 5 0 9 ; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 3 ; A. Momigliano, "Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano", ASNP, ser. I, 3, 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 14=196, 19=201; A.H.M. Jones, "Review of A. Momigliano, Ricerche sulTorganizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano", JRS, 2 5 , 1935, pp. 2 2 8 - 2 2 9 ; F.M. Heichelheim, "Roman Syria", in: An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV, ed. T. Frank, Baltimore 1938, pp. 2 3 1 - 2 3 3 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 90; A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1964, p. 86; E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, X V I , 1969, p. 1062; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, pp. 2 7 4 - 5 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980, p. 375; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 4 0 - 4 1 ; A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p.
5. Ant. XIV,
202-210
81
684; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 8 8 , 1 9 8 1 , pp. 172, 1 7 6 - 7 , 196; A. Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel, Tubingen 1990, p. 183; I. B e n Shalom, The School ofShammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1993, p. 9; M. Stern, Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Hebr.), ed. D.R. Schwartz, Jerusalem 1995, pp. 2 3 8 - 2 3 9 ; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Caesar's Decrees in the Antiquities: Josephus' Forgeries or Authentic Roman Senatus ConsultaV, Athenaeum, 8 4 , 1996, pp. 8 2 - 8 5 ; eadem, "Ant. X I V , 1 8 5 - 2 6 7 : a Problem of Authenticity", in: CSS, pp. 2 0 3 - 2 0 5 .
202
203
204
(x. 6) T&ioq Kaioap awoKpdxcop SiKxdxcop xo Sewepov eaxrioe Kax' eviauxov onayq xeAxbaiv imep xfjq TepoooXi)|iixcov 7c6A,eco(;,*'167C7ni<; u7rec;aipoi)|j.evr|<;,* ftcopic; xot) 'e|356Liou EXODC;, 6V oaPfkxxiicov eviauxov 7cpoaayopeiJO'uoiv, ercei ev avxdb ur|xe xov dxco xcov 5 Sev8pcov Kap7c6v X.a|ipdvo\)oi ur|xe O7ceipovoiv. Kai i v a ev Ei8covi xco Seuxepcp exei xov (|)6pov drcoSiScoai, xo xexapxov xcov O7ieipou.evcov, rcpo<; xovxoiq exi Kai TpKavcp Kai xoiq XCKVOIC; avxov xaq SeKaxag xeAxooiv, d<; exeXovv Kai xoi<; Ttpoyovoii; 10 auxcov. Kai orccoc; Ltr|8ei(; ur|xe dp%cov urixe dvxdp%cov urixe oxpaxrryoi; rj 7upea(3ei)xr|(; ev xoi<; opoiq xcov 'Ioi)8aicov dvioxfj oi)Li|ia%iav Ltr|8e axpaxicoxaic; ec;fj x P l l TOUXCOV eio7cpdxxea0ai t| eiq napa%eiLiaaiav f) dAXcp xivi ovoLiaxi, aXX e l v a i rcavxa- 15 x60ev dve7ir|pedoTOi)<;. daa xe \iexa xavjxa eo%ov rj e7ipiavxo Kai SiaKaxeo^ov Kai eveurjOriaav, xauxa navxa avxovq e^eiv. 'I6TU7CT|V xe 7t6X,iv, f\v an dp%fj<; eo%ov Iou8aioi rcoiovuevoi xnv npoq PcoLiaiouc; cjnAiav, auxcov e l v a i , Ka0cb<; Kai xo rcpcoxov, 2 0 1
205
1. 2-4.
Liaxct
dictator Lat. unde ainoKpdxtop 8iKxdxcop coni. N i e s e . xe?icociv... exouq] Ioppenses tributa Hierosolymorum civitati praestent excepto septimo anno Lat. 5. £jtei8fj F L A M V . 7-8. Kai i v a . . . crcieipouevcov o m . Lat. 8. drcoSiSoaoiv P. 8. cjceipcouevcov L. 1 1 - 1 2 . |rnxe dvxdpxcov P: o m . rell. Lat. 13. dvtoxd<; P (Niese); d v i a x d F L A M V . eviaxq. Hudson; evicxfj Naber; dvioxfj Marcus. 1 3 - 1 4 . |ir|8e oxpaxicoxai<; e£fj xpfjuxxxa XOTJXCDV coni. Marcus. Kai cxpaxicoxac; e^in (e^fj P) fj xd xpfjuaxa XOIJXCOV (xovxct) xPWa^a P) codd.: militibus liceat pecunias exigere Lat. 16. xama. xaDxa rcdvxa F L A M . 17. Kai 8iaKaxea%ov o m . F L V .
//. The Documents 206
Quoted
by
Josephus
fintv dpeaKer cj)6po\)<; XE XEXEIV vnep xax>XT\c, xfjq noXeoiq TpKavov 'AA,£^dv8pov t>iov Kai 7tai8a<; a\)io\) 7r.apd xcov xf)v yfjv VEUOUEVCOV X ^ P ^ ^I|XEVO<; E^aycoyiou Kax' Eviamov ev ZiScovi |a.o8ioi)<; 8iaILiajpioajc; E^aKoaiovt; eP8ou.T|Kovxa KEVXE W I E ^ 25 aipoa)|i£vo\) xov EP86|IO\J exovc,, 6 aafjpaxiKov KaA.o'Doi, K a 0 ' 6 OUXE dpouoiv OVXE XOV drco xcov 8£v8pcov KapTcov ^ain.pdvo'uoiv. xac, xe KCOUCK; xdq EV xtp \ieyaX(o 7i£8i(p, dq Tpicavoc; Kai oi rcpoyovoi 7ip6x£pov a\)xoi5 5iaKax£ax > dpEOKEi xfj auy30 KA,f|xcp xavxa TpKavov Kai 'IovSaioax; E X E I V eni xoi<; SiKaioiq olq Kai rcpoxEpov £i%ov. UEVEIV 8E Kai xd an dpxnq SiKaia doa 7tp6<; aXkr\kovq 'IouSaion; Kai xoiq dpxi£p£Voiv Kai xoi<; lEpEijaiv fjv, xd XE (|)i^dv0p(O7ca doa xov xe dr\\iov \|/r|(|)iaa|Li£vou Kai 35 xfjc; avyKArixo'i) EG%OV. EXI XOVXOK; XE xoic; 8iKaioic; xpfjaGai avxolq e^Etvai EV At)88oi<;. xotx; XE xonovq Kai x^P ^ EftotKia, o a a PaaiA.E'Oai Hvpiaq Kai OOIVIKT|<; m)|i|i,d%oi<; ovai Pcoiiaicov Kaxd ScapEav \mfjpx£ Kap7io\)a0ai, xavxa. SoKijid^Ei 40 fj at>yK?ir|xo<; TpKavov xov £Gvdpxr|v Kai 'IouSatoui; £%EIV. Si8oa6ai XE TpKavq) Kai 7 t a i a i xoiq auxov Kai 7ip£aPE\)xai(; xoiq i)n avxov 7i£|X(|)0£ioiv EV XE 7i\)y|a.fi iiovouaxcov Kai Grjpicov KaGE^oiiEvoix; jiExd xa>v a\)yK?ir|xiK(bv G E W P E I V * K a i aixnaauEvoax; 7capd 45 SiKxaxopoq r\ Tiapd innap%ox) 7uap£A,0£iv EI<; xf]v at)yKA,r|xov Eiadycooi Kai xd a7toKpi|j,axa auxoiq d7ioSi8coaiv EV fi|i£pai<; 8EKO xaic; a n d e a n ; d(|)' r\q dv xd 86y|a.a y£vt|xai. 0
207
ov
208
209
0
210
21.
K C T L
t e X e i v add. Viereck.
22.
TpKavov e%eiv V.
24.
ev add. Viereck.
34.
Kai xotq i e p e v o i v om. FLV Lat.
35. ^iXavOpoma. institutiones Lat. 36. e t i coni. Marcus, eid codd. (et N i e s e ) . 3 6 - 3 7 . e n (eid)... Ai388oi<; corrupta esse monet Niese. eid delet Viereck.
38.
%«>pa<;. xtipav P.
40.
KaprcouaOai et in Lydia loca vel terras quas pro hospitalitate reges syriae vel foenicae per donationem romanorum possederunt Lat. Kai ex Lat. ins. Hudson, et si petiverint dictatorem vel magistrum equitum ut in senatum e o s introducant et responsa eis tradant intra decimum diem hoc fiat post senatus consultum Lat. oxav eiq F L A M V .
45.
46.
5. Ant. XIV,
83
202-210
Translation 1
Gaius Caesar, Imperator, Dictator for the second time , has ruled that they shall pay a tax for the city of Jerusalem, * Joppa excluded, * every year except in the seventh year, which they call sabbatical year, because in this time they neither take fruit from the trees nor do they sow. And that in the second year they shall pay the tribute at Sidon, consisting of one fourth of the produce sown, and in addition they shall also pay tithes to Hyrcanus and his sons, just as they paid to their forefathers. And that no one, whether magistrate, or pro-magistrate, praetor or legate, shall raise auxiliary troops in the territories of the Jews, nor shall soldiers be allowed to exact money from them, whether for winter-quarters or on any other pretext, but they shall be free from all molestation. And whatever they may hereafter acquire or buy or possess or have assigned to them, all these they shall keep. It is also our pleasure that the city of Joppa, which the Jews had held from ancient times when they made a treaty of friendship with the Romans, shall belong to them as at first; and for this city Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and his sons shall pay tribute, collected from those who inhabit the territory, as a tax on the land, the harbour and exports, payable at Sidon in the amount of twenty thousand six hundred and seventy-five modii every year except in the seventh year, which they call the sabbatical year, wherein they neither plow nor take fruit from the trees. As for the villages in the Great Plain, which Hyrcanus and his forefathers before him possessed, it is the pleasure of the senate that Hyrcanus and the Jews shall retain them by the rights by which they also formerly held them, and that the ancient rights which the Jews and their high priests and priests had in relation to each other should continue, and also the privileges which they received by vote of the people and the senate. And that they be permitted to enjoy these rights at Lydda also. As for the places, lands and farms, the fruits of which the kings of Syria and Phoenicia, as allies of the Romans, were permitted to enjoy by their gift, these the senate decrees that the ethnarch Hyrcanus and the Jews shall have. And that to Hyrcanus and his children and to the envoys sent by him shall be given the right to sit with the members of the senatorial rank as spectators of the contests of gladiators and wild beasts; * and that when they request permission of the Dictator or of the Master of the horse to enter into the senate chamber, they shall admit them and they shall give them an answer within ten days at the latest from the time when a decree is passed. 1
"Imperator for the second time": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 5 5 , following the Greek manuscripts.
Commentary 1. Caesar was first acclaimed imperator in Spain in 61 BCE, and then probably three times in Gaul, in 5 7 , 5 5 and 52 (when supplications were decreed for him
84
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
in Rome). It is likely that Caesar himself, or those who acted on his behalf, insisted that he be considered and honored as imperator. Cicero addressed him as imperator in a letter written in 54, and Caesar himself used this title in 49 in his letters to Cicero. The title imperator also appears on inscriptions written both in the East and in the West (see bibliographical details in S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford 1971, p. 105, notes 2, 3). Caesar bears his Gallic acclamation till his triumph in 46 BCE, though he has entered the city in the meantime — and then before long there is another acclamation and a triumph celebrated from Spain, in October 45 BCE (A.E. Raubitschek, "Epigraphical Notes on Julius Caesar", JRS, 44, 1954, p. 73; MRR, II, pp. 305-306). Syme observes that the title imperator has no exclusive significance and is absent from the Dictator's official nomenclature on the Fasti Consulares (R. Syme, "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature", Historia, 7, 1958 = Roman Papers, I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, pp. 367-368). What is meaningful from our point of view is that the title usually appears without the specification of the number. On its use in an absolute fashion, without numbers, see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 285. Bitto observes that "the use that Caesar made of this title in an absolute fashion, without the specification of the number, was the first step towards its assumption as praenomen" (I. Bitto, "La concessione del patronato nella politica di Cesare", Epigraphica, 32, 1970, p. 174, note 20). See also R. Combes, Imperator: Recherches sur I'emploi et la signification du litre de imperator dans la Rome republicaine, Paris 1966, pp. 107, 123 (non vidi). It is therefore probable that the title cnjxoKpdxcop xo Seuxepov, which appears in our text, is a corruption, and that the original text gave oroxoKpdxcop SiKxdxcop xd Seuxepov, as Niese restores following Krebs (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 254-5). (This seems preferable to Judeich's suggestion cnjxoKpdxcop 8 i K i d x c o p xo 8', a reading rejected by Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, pp. 508-509). Niese's, actually Krebs', suggestion is today generally accepted. See Juster, Les Juifs, p. 140, S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford 1971, p. 105, note 4; Schurer, The History, I, pp. 2 7 3 - 4 , note 23 and Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 172. The title SiKxdxcop was probably dropped in the process of copying the document, so that the word cnjxoKpdxcop came to be close to the number of the dictatorship. It is worthwhile noting that the title SiKxdxcop was also dropped in document no. 1 on 1. 11. 2. EOTnae also appears in RDGE nos. 58,1. 67; 26, col. c, 1. 23. It translates constituit (Caes., BC, III, 1, 2) or statuit (Bell.Alex., 65, 4): see M. Gelzer, Caesar: Politician and Statesman, Oxford 1968, p. 258, note 3. 2-3. xe^cooiv imep xfjc; 'IepoooA/uuixcov 7t6^eco<;. Both Niese and Marcus prefer the reading of the Greek manuscripts to that of the Latin ioppenses tributa hierosolymorum ciuitati praestent (which is chosen by Schalit, King Herod, p. 389, note 11). Against Seldenus, who interprets these words as if Caesar imposed payment of a tribute for Jerusalem upon all the inhabitants of Judaea, Krebs observes that Pompey already established a tax on Judaea.
5. Ant. XIV,
202-210
85
No source attests that any Roman official abolished it, so we may wonder why Caesar felt the need to mention it again. After Hyrcanus' help in the Alexandrian war, we would expect Caesar to have diminished, not increased, the taxes of the Jews (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 257-258). A possible solution could be that Caesar spelled out all the regulations concerning taxation, including also those previously established by other magistrates. For a discussion on taxation, see Jones in his review of Momigliano's Ricerche, pp. 2 2 8 - 2 2 9 , and Schalit, King Herod, pp. 8 6 - 8 8 , who compares the rights given by Caesar to Hyrcanus to those enjoyed by the free cities. See also Small wood, The Jews, pp. 4 0 - 4 1 . 3. There is no logical connection between the first part of the phrase and the second. It definitely appears that the whole sentence starting with Tdioq Kaioap ... earnae ... orcax; is corrupt, and a lacuna may be suggested not only after, but also before 'I67t7cr|<; im£^aipouu£vr|<;. Scholars have tried in different ways to make sense of it. Krebs interprets: "haec urbs Iudaeis reddita est, ea lege... ut a tributis esset immunis, exceptis iis, quae agri cultores oporteret Hyrcano, eiusque filiis pendere ob frumentum, e regione et portu quotannis Sidonem exportatum {Decreta Romanorum, p. 259), and Roth suggests that 'I67U7rn<; \)7ie^aipo\j|j,evr|(; is an addition made to the protocol of the senatus consultum (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 66). Schalit suggests reading 'Io7Utr|<; xcopiq, "in addition to [a tax on] Joppa". See Smallwood, The Jews, p. 41, note 62. Most scholars maintain that a part of the tribute which the'people of Joppa used under Pompey's ordinance to pay to the Romans was to be paid to the Jews (so Mendelssohn, Mommsen and Schurer [see bibliographical details in: Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, p. 508, note 4] and Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 66). 4. xmpic, tou epdoficu ETOVC,. It is highly probable that the Jews themselves had requested Caesar to accord them this exemption when they met Caesar in Syria in the summer of 47 BCE (see above, p. 52). The exemption from taxes in the sabbatical years had possibly been granted to the Jews already in Hellenistic times. Josephus has it starting in Alexander's days: "when the High Priest asked that they might observe their country's laws and in the seventh year be exempted from tribute, he granted all this" (Ant. XI, 238). On the sabbatical year during the second Temple period, see S. Safrai, "The Sabbatical Year Commandment in Post-Second Temple Reality" (Hebr.), Tarbiz, 36, 1966, pp. 304-328; 37, 1967, pp. 1-21; J. Cohen, "Testimonies to the Observance of the Commandment of the Sabbatical Year During the Second Temple Period" (Hebr.), in: Shemitah. Meqorot Hagut Mehqar, ed. Z. Admonit, Jerusalem 1973, pp. 98-116; B.Z. Wacholder, "The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period", HUCA, 44, 1973, pp. 153-196. Safrai observes that "Scripture stresses the religio-social significance of an entire year of 'Sabbath unto the Lord' in which the fruits of the Land are equally available
86
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
for consumption to the field owner, slave, maidservant, and the needy. There is no need to catalogue the economic hardships caused by the total cessation of agriculture. Besides accounts of empty warehouses and the occasional need to adjourn wars because of the Sabbatical Year, there were also animated descriptions of the social and economic difficulties encountered" (S. Safrai, "The Land of Israel in Tannaitic Halacha", Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, ed. G. Strecker, Gottingen 1983, p. 205). The sabbatical year is also mentioned by Tacitus, Historiae, V, 4, 3 = Stern, GLAJJ, II, no. 281. 1. 4. Stemberger suggests that the exemption from taxes on sabbatical years was seemingly abolished after the revolt against Rome (G. Stemberger, "Die Juden im Romischen Reich: Unterdriickung und Privilegierung einer Minderheit", Christlicher Antijudaismus und Jiidischer Antipaganismus: Ihre Motive und Hintergrunde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, ed. H. Frohnhofen, Hamburg 1990, p. 9). Safrai, however, maintains that "there is no way of ascertaining whether they (the Jews) also retained the privileges of tax release during the Sabbatical year. However, the very fact that during the Jabneh period the laws relevant to the Sabbatical year were adhered to most stringently, leads us to assume that they did indeed retain this privilege. Only after the Bar Kochba rebellion is there any mention of the request for special dispensations which would allow the Jews to gather the crops for the purpose of paying the government taxes. It thus becomes apparent that following the unsuccessful insurrection, the tax-exemption was invalidated, in the same manner that other national-communal rights were denied the Jewish people" (S. Safrai, "The Practical Implementation of the Sabbatical Year after the Destruction of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), Tarbiz, 35, 1966, pp. 304-328, cited in Rabello, "The Legal Condition", p. 706). 7-8. The payments in kind had to be delivered at Sidon, probably the central granaries of the province of Syria. See Rostowzew, Geschichte, p. 477 and idem, SEHHW, II, p. 1000. On the requirement that the harvest be brought to ports for export, see also Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 239, note 18. Kasher suggests that the fact that Sidon, which had the status of an independent city, was given a special role in the framework of the fiscal arrangements between Rome and Judaea was perhaps a means of emphasizing the special status of the Jewish state, which was not considered a province, and therefore did not pay its taxes directly to the Roman provincial officials, but through a neutral party in accordance with a special agreement (Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, pp. 182-183). The importance of Sidon also emerges from the fact that it is to Sidon that Caesar sends his letter accompanying the decree concerning Hyrcanus II for information (document no. 1, 11. 1-10). Sidon is also mentioned in the senate decree preserved in document no. 2, 11. 7 - 1 1 . 8. Mendelssohn observes that the tributes mentioned here are so heavy that they are impossible to believe, and suggests reading TO SeKaxov instead of TO TETCtpTOv. Even so, he writes, they remain extraordinarily burdensome
5. Ant. XIV,
202-210
87
(Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 204). That is why most scholars have interpreted "the fourth part of the produce sown in the second year" to mean "the fourth part every two years", that is, the eighth part (see bibliographical details in Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 239, note 17). Rostovtzeff observes that the Jews must now pay one fourth of the produce instead of the third which they had to pay in Pompey's time (Rostowzew, Geschichte, p. 477). On taxation, see also Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars" pp. 312-313; Biichler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", pp. 102-104 and Jones in his review of Momigliano's Ricerche, p. 229. 9. On Hyrcanus' family status, see above, document no. 1, commentary to 1.21. 9-10. The Jewish custom of paying tithes to the priests is already mentioned by Hecataeus, De ludaeis, apud: Jos., Contra Ap. I, 188 = Stern, GLAJJ, I, no. 12. See Stern's observations on p. 41. On the meaning of Caesar's recognition of the traditional Jewish laws, see Biichler, Studies in Jewish History, pp. 5 - 6 and Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 9, note 58. 10-11. The preservation of the status quo is a common feature in Roman official documents. See below, commentary to 11. 18-21. 11-16. Kai orccoc; uriSeit;... Roth maintains that "the bad tradition of this sentence, the various lectures and the construction itself, which is different in the two parts of the sentence, suggest that we have here an excerpt of the whole paragraph" (Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 67). The whole phrase is emended according to Krebs' suggestion. The manuscripts give Kai oxpaxicoxac; e^tr) (e^fj P) ti xd xpTWiaia xot>xa>v (xo-uxco xpT\\mia P), while the Latin version has "militibus liceat pecunias exigere". Krebs observes that the f| has to be deleted, since "perturbat enim sensum, qui est hie: neve militibus liceat pecunias exigere, aut hybernandi causa, aut alio quocunque nomine". As to the origin of this f|, Krebs observes that "nec dubium est, quin istud fj ex alliteratione antecedentis e^iri fit ortum, ut sexcenties factum". Instead, we should read ur|: "sensus enim est: nec liceat militibus..." (Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 267). The sense of the phrase is therefore "neque militibus liceat harum rerum (militum imperatorum) neque hybernandi causa, neque alio quocunque nomine pecunias exigere''' (Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 268). Exemption from "every war contribution" is often mentioned in Roman documents since 146 BCE (see RDGE no. 49 = RGE no. 37, 1. 6). Close parallels to our text are found in the Antonian law concerning Termessus Maior in Pisidia: "No magistrate or promagistrate (or) legate or anyone else shall introduce soldiers into the town of Termessus Maior in Pisidia or into the land of Termessus Maior in Pisidia for the sake of wintering over" (FIRA I, no. 1 1 = RGE no. 72, col. II, 11. 7 - 9 , 72 or 68 BCE; see also Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, commentary to col. II, 11. 6-17, p. 339). In the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus, too, we read: "nor should any magistrate [or promagistrate of the Roman people, or anyone else], billet on 2
88
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
them, in the city or territory or bounds of the Plarasans [and Aphrodisians, a soldier or a substitute soldier, a cavalry man], or anyone else, with a view to providing winter-quarters, [nor order such billeting to take place], nor levy from the people of Plarasa [and Aphrodisias money], or soldiers, [or ships, or corn], or weapons, or rafts, [or anything else at all" (Aphr. no. 8, 39 BCE, 11. 32-36). The provision of winter billets and requisitioned supplies for the Roman army was a major hardship to the provinces under the republic, and exemption correspondingly a prized privilege. In this connection a decree of Octavian on the privileges of veterans may be quoted, FIRA I, no. 56, where, according to Roussel's interpretation in Syria 15, 1934, p. 49, we should read: Invitis eis neq[ue] magistr[at]us cete[ros] neque laegatum [njeque procurator em [nejque em[p]torem t[ri]butorum esse [p]lace[t] neque in domo eorum divertendi iemandis que causa<m> (ne)que [a]b ea quern de
uci placeft]. See Reynolds, Aphr., p. 77. For parallels in Polybius and Livy, see Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 196. 2
Roth observes that in our text, ouunaxicx means auxilia and not foedus; o\)\i\iaxioi Kai axpaxicoxac; from the philological point of view are therefore a hendiadis, the meaning of which is "allied forces" (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 67). As for the opoi mentioned on 1. 12, they are probably fines in the sense of territorium (see Reynolds, Aphr., p. 78). The exemption of the Judaean Jews from winter-quarters is also mentioned, in a more concise way, in document no. 1, 11. 31-32. On the exemption of the Jews from military service see Schurer, The History, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 121, and below, p. 377. Roth observes that here winter-quarters are prohibited, but transition of forces is allowed (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 68). 16-18. It is impossible to understand what jxexa xauxa may refer to. This, however, is not a reason sufficient to delete it, as Krebs suggests (Decreta Romanorum, p. 268). The formula o o a xe ... ea%ov f| e7cpiavxo Kai 8iaKaxea%ov Kai eveurjOnoav, xauxa navxa avxoix; e%eiv is often found in Roman senate decrees. A senatus consultum concerning Koroneia states: "concerning this [matter it was decreed as follows]: that whatever things once [belonged to them they are to be permitted] to have as their own" (RDGE no. 3 = RGE no. 20, 171 or 170 BCE, 11. 6-8). On the restitution of territories which had formerly belonged to a people or to a city, see below, pp. 100-101. The subject of eo^ov is the Jews, or Hyrcanus and the Jews, or Hyrcanus and his children (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 68). On a comparison between Caesar's and Pompey's regulations concerning the Jews in this respect, see Buchler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", p. 100. 18-21. Joppa had been subdued by Jonathan in 142, and its inhabitants expelled (I Mace. 13:11; Ant. XIII, 215). In the same period of time, the alliance between the Jews and the Romans, which had been established in Judah's days, was renewed. See / Mace. 15:16-24; Ant. XIII, 227, and
5. Ant. XIV,
202-210
89
Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, pp. 7 6 - 7 8 , 238, note 13. In spite of the fact that most inhabitants seem to have been Jews (see Biichler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", p. 101), Joppa had been annexed to the Roman province of Syria by Pompey in 63: "...also the coast cities of Gaza, Joppa, Dora and Straton's Tower... all these Pompey set free and annexed them to the province (of Syria)" (Ant. XIV, 76). Our text shows that Caesar abolishes here Pompey's territorial regulations. Among the places restored by Caesar to the Jews, Joppa was especially important inasmuch as it was the only seaport of Judaea. See Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", pp. 308-9; Biichler, Studies in Jewish History, pp. 13-15; Schurer, The History, I, p. 275; II, pp. 110-114, and Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 9, note 60. See also Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 65, on the economic condition of Joppa in Roman times. According to Kasher, "it is reasonable to assume that Julius Caesar was guided, in this case, by a realistic and sober policy. Indeed, Joppa's national Jewish nature was to continue into the future, as witness its decisive anti-Herodian stand (Ant. XIV, 396-397) some ten years later, in 39 BCE, and its anti-Roman position in the days of the great revolt" (Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic Cities, p. 183). On the Jewish presence at Joppa in the first century CE, see S. Applebaum, "The Status of Jaffa in the First Century of the Current Era", SCI, 8/9, 1985/1988, pp. 138-144. 2 1 - 2 3 . ie?ieiv does not appear in the manuscripts and the phrase is left without a verb by Niese. Krebs, Momigliano and Schalit read e%eiv according to the Codex Vaticanus gr. no. 147 (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 2 7 0 - 1 ; King Herod, p. 389, note 11), hence the translation offered by Heichelheim. This interpretation, however, involves the necessity of emending the text. That is why Viereck's suggestion of reading xeA,£iv seems preferable. See Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 557, note g. Since Joppa is restored by Caesar to the Jews, as we learn from 11. 18-20, it is reasonable that Hyrcanus has to pay a tribute for it. Moreover, in the case that Hyrcanus was to receive a tax from the inhabitants of Joppa, we would expect it to be paid at Jerusalem and not at Sidon. Stern observes that the tax had the purpose of indemnifying the Roman government against the financial loss caused by the restoration of Joppa to the Jews (Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, pp. 239-240). On taxation matters, see above, commentary to 11. 2 - 3 . 2 2 - 2 3 . Kai 7iai8a<; auxou. On Hyrcanus' family status, see document no. 1, commentary to 1. 21. 2 1 - 2 4 . Jones emends %c6pa<; (Tufievoc; e^aycoyioi)) to %copi<;, deleting Kai. He observes that "Hyrcanus then paid a fixed annual tribute of wheat for Joppa, apart from (i.e. in addition to) the export dues of Joppa; perhaps he drew the import dues h i m s e l f (Jones in his review of Momigliano's Ricerche, p. 229). Instead of e%eiv, Schlatter suggests reading d7co8i56vat (since the same verb appears on 1. 8) or a synonym (Schlatter, Zur Topographic p. 321). According to this scholar, the whole sentence is corrupt, and napd xoov
90
//. The Documents
Quoted by Josephus
xf|v yfjv VEJIOUEVCOV would be a later addition to the text. He suggests reading approximately rcepi %(6pac; Kai AILIEVOC; £c;aycoyio'u, meaning that "they have to pay for the agricultural areas and for the port" (Schlatter, Zur Topographie, p. 3 2 2 ) . 2 4 . From the mention of Sidon in connection with the taxes which the Jews have to pay, we understand that the direct intervention of the publicani was no longer in force at Caesar's time (see Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 6 7 ) . Against Momigliano, according to whom the change of system had been decided already by Gabinius (Ricerche, p. 1 9 = 2 0 1 ) , Braund maintains that Caesar, not Gabinius, was responsible for the removal of the publicani from Judaea (D.C. Braund, "Gabinius, Caesar and the Publicani of Judaea", Klio, 6 5 , 1 9 8 3 , pp. 2 4 1 - 2 4 4 ) . See below, pp. 9 7 - 9 8 . 2 4 - 2 5 . On the amount of 2 0 , 6 7 5 modii,
as against the 2 0 , 0 0 0 usually
imposed by the Romans, see Schlatter, Zur Topographie, p. 3 2 2 . From where did they take the money? The answer, Roth believes, is contained in the phrase /copac; AILIEVOC; E^aycoyiu (11. 2 3 - 2 4 ) , which is obscure and was already unclear to the Latin translator. According to Roth, the tax has the form of an export tax. xtipac, A,IUEVO<; would be a contamination of the text, or an addition by Josephus or by a copyist, perhaps in order to explain something, as a nota. From the mention of the word xcopa one could learn that there was also a corn tax which had to be paid by the inhabitants who lived on the streets leading out of Joppa into non-Jewish territories (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 6 9 ) . 2 5 - 2 6 . The reasons for the exemption from taxes on the sabbatical year are the same as those mentioned above on 1. 4 . Repetitions are a common feature in Roman senatus consulta. See below, pp. 9 5 - 9 6 . 2 8 - 3 1 . xdc; XE KCOUOK; xaq EV XCO LiEydtap TceSicp. In Ant. XII, 3 4 8 Josephus
writes that "after crossing the Jordan, they came to the Great Plain, in front of which lies Bethsane, by the Greeks called Scythopolis". According to Schalit, King Herod, pp. 7 5 3 - 9 , Caesar restored to Jewish control the former Hasmonean estate in the plain of Esdraelon, the three Samaritan toparchies of Lydda, Ephraim and Ramathain, and some former Seleucid territory of unknown location, but presumably Jewish, together with Aphairema and Ramathain. Lydda is one of the three districts which the king Demetrius II had taken away from Samaria and given to Judaea (I Mace. 1 1 : 3 4 and Ant. XIII, 1 2 7 ) and which Pompey had taken from the Jews in 6 3 BCE. Kasher observes that these territorial concessions may have been to the detriment of Scythopolis. The fact that Caesar gave back to the Jews not Scythopolis itself but the territories around may mean that Caesar corrected Pompey's decisions about the Jews while maintaining the Roman principle not to give back the territory which had been taken (Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic Cities, p. 1 8 3 , note 1 7 9 ) . See also Buchler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 ; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 4 0 ; Schurer, The History, I, p. 2 7 4 ,
5. Ant. XIV,
202-210
91
and Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 9. These are possibly the xoi)q deSo\i£vovq xonovq mentioned in document no. 2, 11. 2 - 3 . On the restitution of territories mentioned in the Greek inscriptions, see below, pp. 97, 100-101. 3 0 - 3 1 . Since the second century BCE, the term ouyKXrixoc; has been used to designate the Roman senate in contrast to PovA.f|, used when referring to a local senate. In literary sources, other terms used to indicate the Roman senate are Poi)X.r|, cruve8po<;, or>ve8piov, and yepo\)oia. See E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, XVI, 1969, p. 1055, note 4. 3 1 - 3 2 . The words e m xolc, S I K O I O K ; oi<; Kai rcpdxepov eixov find a close parallel in document no. 3, 11. 6 - 8 , where we read: e m xol<; 8iKaioic; Kai voui|ioi<; die, Kai oi wpdyovoi avxcbv ... SiaKaxecxov. 3 2 - 3 3 . |ieveiv 8c Kai xd an dpxfjc; StKaia. Similar phraseology appears in the letter of Manius Acilius Glabrio to the Delphians: "I will try ... to see to it that your ancestral rights that existed from the beginning will be yours forever" (RDGE no. 37 A = RGE no. 12, 190 BCE, 11. 8-9). The expression KaGdx; rcdxpiov auxoic; e£' ap%f\q also appears in a letter of the praetor Spurius Postumius to Delphi (RDGE no. 1 B = RGE no. 15 B, 189 BCE, 1. 7). Roth suggests that SiKaia refer to taxation rights (Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 70). 35. Basing himself on comparison with document no. 1,1. 27, Roth suggests that these (j)iA,dv0p(O7ca may be identified with the tithes paid by the Jews (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 70). 35. xo\) xe 8r|u.o\) Yi/r^iaauevov Kai xfj<; auyK?if|xo\). On inscriptions preserving the formula populus senatusque Romanus instead of the traditional one senatus populusque Romanus, see F. Martin, "Populus Senatusque Romanus", Iura, 34, 1983, pp. 103-105 and idem, "La formula Populus senatusque Romanus en los bronces de Lascuta y Alcantara", Gerion, 4, 1986, pp. 313-317. 37. ev AvSSoiq. This sentence is probably corrupt. Smallwood reports the suggestion put forward by Schalit, who retains e m (while Marcus gives exi) XOIJXOK;, emends xpfjoGai to xwpeioGai in the sense of "reside" or "settle in", postulates the loss of [ev 'A^aipeuon; Kai] ev AtiSdoic; [Kai ev TajiaGdiji] and transposes the sentence to the beginning of the paragraph, so that e m XOVXOK; refers to xoic; 8iKaioi<;... eixov on 1. 32. Schalit argues that the Jews had been expelled from the Samaritan toparchies in 63 and now regained their residence rights. See the discussion in Smallwood, The Jews, p. 40, note 61. Lydda, lying in the heart of the Judaean lowlands, on a crossroads with highways leading to Caesarea, Joppa and Jerusalem, had a Jewish majority already at the end of the Second Temple period (see O. Oppenheimer, "Jewish Lydda in the Roman Era", HUCA, 59, 1988, pp. 115-136). See also Buchler, "Die priesterlichen Zehnten", p. 106; Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai, p. 9, note 63 and see above, commentary to 11. 2 8 - 3 1 . 36-37. Mendelssohn observes that the words are corrupted but the sense of this phrase is clear: the town is restored to the Jews, to whom it had
92
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
belonged since the days of Demetrius II (as we learn from / Mace. 11:34 and Ant. XIII, 127). Mendelssohn suggests reading here: e m xe xouxoic; xoiq [7tdX,ai] 8iKaioi<; %pfja9ai a\)xoi<; e^eivai ev A\>88oi<;, which corresponds to the Latin praeterea ut eodem quo antea lure Lydda civitatem habeant (Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 235). Against this conjecture, see Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 71. 38. o o a |3aoiA.£iJci £upia<; Kai OoiviKriq. Reinach maintains that these kings were Seleucid kings, but the allusion to their being "allies of the Romans" makes this suggestion improbable (see the bibliographical details in the Loeb ed., VII, p. 559, note e). Following Schurer, Marcus suggests instead that these kings are probably dynasts of Syria, to whom Pompey had granted Jewish territory. This seems confirmed by Ant. XIV, 128-129, where Josephus writes that "when Mithridates of Pergamum, who was bringing an auxiliary force, was unable to make his way through Pelusium, and was delayed at Ascalon, Antipater arrived with three thousand heavily-armed Jewish soldiers, and also managed to get the chiefs of Arabia to come to his aid; and it was owing to him that all the rulers of Syria furnished aid, not wishing to be outdone in their zeal for Caesar; among these were the prince Jamblichus and Ptolemey, the son of Soemus, who lived on Mount Lebanon, and almost all the cities". This Ptolemy has to be distinguished from the son of Mennaeus in the same region. He and Jamblicus are otherwise unknown. Soemus may possibly be the ruler mentioned in Vita 52. The name is Arabic and Nabataean, found in Petra and Ituraea. The original form was perhaps Arab (see the bibliography quoted by Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, pp. 516-7, note b). On Schalit's suggestion of emending this phrase, see Smallwood, The Jews, p. 40, note 61. As for the verb Kap7to\Ja0ai on 1. 40, Johnson et al. observe that it may mean here "to enjoy the usufruct (without ownership)" (Roman Statutes, p. 90, note 4). 42. Kai Tcaiai xoic; a m o v . On Hyrcanus' family status, see document no. 1, commentary to 1. 21. 4 2 - 4 5 . Roth stresses that these rights are a sign of good diplomatic relations (Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 72). A close parallel to these lines is found in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus, issued in 39/38 BCE, where we read: "[Concerning the proposal made by the] consuls... (it is agreed) that... the ambassadors of the Plarasans and Aphrodisians should be allowed to sit] as spectators in the [area reserved for senators] at contests and gladiatorial combats, [also hunts and competitions of athletes, should any occur in the city of Rome or within] one mile of the city of Rome (Aphr. no. 8, 11. 73-77. Similarly in no. 9, 11. 10-11). For parallels found in literary sources, see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, pp. 2 7 4 - 5 . This right was then revoked by Augustus (Divus Augustus, 44, 1. See Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 275). In the case of the Jews, the right to sit with the members of the senatorial order as spectators of the contests of gladiators and wild beasts mentioned
5. Ant. XIV,
93
202-210
in 11. 4 2 - 4 5 was probably not particularly appreciated. Rabbinic sources characterize participation in the race as sheer idolatry or bloodshed. See b. Av.Zara, 18b and other sources quoted and discussed by I. Ben Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1993, p. 51, notes 7 2 - 7 3 . See also pp. 310-313 and below, pp. 446, 4 5 6 - 7 . 4 5 - 4 9 . On the right to enter the senate (senatum adire) see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 276. The right given to Hyrcanus, his children and his envoys to be admitted to the senate chamber and "to be given an answer within ten days at the latest from the time when a decree is passed" (11. 45^-9), finds a close parallel, in the senate decree concerning Stratonikeia: "As for the envoys coming- from Stratonikeia to Rome, it has been decreed that (audience before) the senate be granted [to them by the magistrates outside the regular procedure. Decreed] (RDGE no. 18 = REG no. 63, 81 BCE, 11. 129-131) and in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus passed in 39/38 BCE: "[concerning the proposal made by the] consuls... (it is agreed) that... whatever [ambassadors come from Plarasa and Aphrodisias in the future to Rome] to meet the senate they are to report [to the magistrates and promagistrates of the Roman people who have the power] to summon [the senate], in order that [they may given access to the senate; and it is agreed by the senate that they should have access to the senate without waiting their turn and] the right [to speak and report in that body (and) that] a reply [be' given to the envoys of Plarasa and Aphrodisians within ten days of their] attending and reporting [to the senate]" (Aphr. no. 8, 11. 7 3 - 8 3 ; similarly in no. 9, 11. 12-15). In the Lex de provinciis praetoriis, too, we read: "The consul, whose business it shall be — or whoever else [shall convene the senate] — that he [grant] to the embassies [access to the senate, to the ambassadors from the] Rhodian people who may be in Rome he is to grant access to the senate extra ordinem" (Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 16-17: Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 254). Accordig to Viereck, this is not one but two documents. The first one contains Caesar's decisions concerning the Jews made in 47 BCE, while the following paragraphs date to a later period, possibly 44 BCE, which is the date of the previous and of the following fragments preserved in par. 200-201 and 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , a view held also by Schurer. Momigliano, on the other hand, maintains that the oldest document is the second, mentioned in par. 205-210, a senatus consultum dated December 47, while that preserved in par. 2 0 2 - 4 is dated December 47-April 4 6 . Roth, Taubler and Volterra date 1
2
3
1
Viereck, Sermo graecus, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 0 . Geschichte, p. 347, note 2 4 . 3 "Ricerche", p. 19=p. 2 0 1 .
2
94
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
4
the entire document 44 B C E , while a different reconstruction is suggested by Mendelssohn, who links together some paragraphs of document no. 5 and document no. 6 in a single document, dated 44 B C E . There is however no clear formal sign that one document finishes and another starts, namely, that two independent documents are quoted here, as already seen by Judeich. Caesar is spoken of in the third person: rdux; K a i o a p . . . eaxnae (1. 2), while all the decisions about Judaea which follow stem from the senate itself. We find the technical formulas fiutv d p e o K e i (1. 21) and dpeo"K£i xfj OVYKATIXO) (11. 30-1), which is the standard expression used to translate the Latin senatui placere which appears in Greek inscriptions preserving Roman senatus consulta. On 11. 40—42, we also find TOOTCC Soiaua^ei f] auyKXrixoq Tpicavov ... K a i 'Iou8aiovc; ejceiv, which is the formula we always look for when examining possible copies of Roman senatus consulta. 5
6
Formal features suggest that we have here one single senatus consultum. Since it mentions Caesar's decisions made in previous times, as we understand from the past tense used in the text, this document, too, may probably be identified with a senatus consultum which ratifies a decree issued by Caesar concerning the Jews, as Krebs has observed. Mendelssohn, Viereck and Momigliano are therefore correct seeing in this document two different chronological stages. The first is represented by Caesar's decisions, the second by the senate's ratification. From the formal point of view, however, the two stages are incorporated in a single document, as it often happens in these -cases (see for example the senate decree confirming Sulla's decisions concerning Stratonikeia: RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63). 7
As for the date, if we accept Niese's reading "Caesar... Dictator for the second time" on 1. 1, a suggestion which is accepted today by virtually every scholar, then this document was written some time between October 48 and October 47 and not in 44 BCE, as is maintained by Rosenthal, by Judeich (who sees a similarity with document no. 4), by Schurer (who maintains that since documents no. 5 and 4 both deal with taxation, and no. 4 is dated 44 BCE, no. 5, too, has to be dated to the same year) and by Roth. In spite of the fact that it is the longest of the those written in Caesar's time, this document is quoted in a fragmentary way. Moreover, Roth observes that there is no logical order in the subjects treated, and suggests that "when 8
4
Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 65; Taubler, Imperium Romanum, p. 173; E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, X V I , 1969, p. 1062. "Senati Consulta", pp. 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 . Caesar im Orient, p. 140. Decreta Romanorum, p. 257. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars, p. 179; Judeich, Caesar im Orient, p. 140; Schurer, Geschichte, p. 3 4 6 , note 24; Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 65. 5
6
7
8
5. Ant. XIV,
95
202-210
this excerpt was made of the original document, the place of the subjects was changed". That the text is fragmentary is immediately evident. We do not find the prescript, which contains the date, the names of the witnesses and the place of the meeting, and we do not find the theme. The text finishes abruptly and does not mention the provisions about its publication which usually appear in Roman senate decrees towards the end. Only the central section is preserved. The question arises therefore whether other sections, belonging to the beginning or to the end of the decree, may be preserved in other fragments quoted by Josephus. If we accept NieseJs suggestion, the date is the same as that of documents nos. 1 and 2. We may therefore wonder whether our text, too, may constitute a fragment of the same complex of documents dated October 47 BCE, which are preserved in documents nos. 1, 2 and possibly 3. This possibility seems confirmed by the content of the document. Some of the items mentioned in documents no. 1 and no. 5 are identical, such as the recognition of Hyrcanus and his children as ethnarchs of the Jews (document no. 1,11. 2 1 - 2 2 ; document no. 5,1. 41), the recognition of priestly and high-priestly rights in accordance with Jewish laws (document no. 1, 1. 27; document no. 5, 11. 33-34) and the exemption from winter-quarters (document no. 1, 1. 31; document no. 5, 11. 1 1 - 1 6 ) . Particularly meaningful is the fact that these items are mentioned in a different form: in document no. 1, as decisions taken by Caesar, who speaks in the first person: "I, Julius Caesar... have decided... it is my wish that... it is my pleasure that... Nor do I approve...." while in document no. 5 they are formulated in indirect sentences which follow the technical formula "It is the pleasure of the senate that" ( d p e o K e i xfj c v y K A x j x c p ) . In document no. 1 they represent Caesar's decisions, while in document no. 5 they are issued by the Roman senate. Moreover, the description is more detailed in the confirmation of the senate than it is in Caesar's decree. Caesar states: "Nor do I approve of troops being given winter-quarters among them or of money being demanded of them" (11. 31-2), while in document no. 5 we read: "And that no one, whether magistrate or pro-magistrate, praetor or legate, shall raise auxiliary troops in the territories of the Jews, nor shall soldiers be allowed to exact money from them, whether for winter-quarters or on any other pretext, but they shall be free from molestation" (11. 11-16). This enlarged repetition is a common feature of Roman senate decrees. When confirming, the senate always repeats the items which appear in the decrees issued by magistrates. An example can be found in a Greek inscription 9
10
11
9
1 0
1 1
Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 7 1 . See above, p. 84. The similarity is noticed also by Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 196.
96
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
preserving a complex of documents regarding Sulla's decisions concerning Stratonikeia (RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63). After Sulla had rewarded the loyalty of the city with a number of rights and privileges in 85 BCE, in 81 BCE the senate passed a decree confirming Sulla's decisions. In this decree we read: "Lucius Corneli[us ... Sulla] ... consulted the senate.... and since the people (of Stratonikeia) [have always preserved their existing] goodwill and loyalty and alliance ... and upon Mithridates] made war, and, displaying their [spirit most zealously in their opposition] to the violence and power of the king ... (asking) that... Themessos, Keramos and the places, [villages, harbors and the revenues of the] cities which Lucius Corn[elius Sulla ...]for the sake of their courage and honor [added and assigned to them, that] they should be permitted to possess (all of these)... about this matter a decree was passed as follows: ... Decreed. Whereas these [envoys] spoke and whereas Lucius Corneli[us Sulla] ... spoke (to the effect) that [it was known to the Ro]mans ... that friendship and [loyalty and goodwill toward the] people of Rome (are things which) the Stratonikeans continuously ... have always preserved... it pleases the senate... to provide that... whatever (things) [for the sake of] their courage [and honor] according to the vote of his advisory board, Lucius Sul[la...] added and assigned to them, (consisting of)... lands, villages and harbors, [these they are to be permitted to keep]..." (RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63, 11. 18-99). Another example of repetitions is provided by the senatus consultum de Stratoniciensibus (Aphr. no. 8). The evidence produced by these cases suggests that the repetitions are not necessarily the result of "conflation of notes by the two consuls, or of conflation of a draft senatus consultum with part of a draft for the related law" as Reynolds suggests, but rather a common procedure in use at the time. 12
It therefore seems possible that the texts which are quoted by Josephus as two separate documents, namely, no. 2 and no. 5, belong to one and the same senatus consultum, a possibility hinted at already by R o t h . Document no. 5 represents the central section of the decree, lacking the beginning and the end, while document no. 2, which preserves the directive to publish the decree, represents the final part. This order is also suggested by the fact that document no. 5 mentions in detail the name of the places which are restored to the Jews, while document no. 2 refers to them merely as to xoix; 8eSo|j,£vov<; 13
T07cou(; (1. 2).
Document no. 3 may also belong to the same senatus consultum (note the similarity of 11. 6-8 there to 11. 3 1 - 3 2 of our document). There the senate confirms Caesar's decision concerning the Jews, which according to Momigliano had been taken in Egypt already in 48 BCE.
1 2
Aphr., p. 7 5 .
1 3
Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder,
p. 7 0 .
5. Ant. XIV,
97
202-210
In conclusion, documents nos. 1, 2, 5 and possibly also 3 may all be sections of the same complex of documents: no. 1 includes the decree issued by Caesar and an accompanying letter, while nos. 2, 5 and possibly 3 are sections of the senatus consultum which confirms it. As for the historical meaning of Caesar's decisions concerning Judaea, the most striking information is represented by the abolition of some of the measures which had been taken by Pompey and by Gabinius. Josephus informs us that Pompey "made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans, and took from its inhabitants the cities of Coele-Syria which they had formerly subdued, and placed them under his own governor; and the entire nation... he confined within its own borders.... and the other cities, Hippus, Scythopolis, Pella, Dium, Samaria, as well as Marisa, Azotus, Jamneia and Arethusa, he restored to their own inhabitants. And not only these cities in the interior... but also the coast cities of Gaza, Joppa, Dora and Straton's Tower... all these Pompey set free and annexed them to the province [of Syria]". Caesar's restitution to the Jews of territories (the villages of the Great Plain, the lands and farms which had been taken by the kings of Syria and Phoenicia, and especially Joppa) clearly had striking importance from the economic, political, demographical and strategic points of view. As for the regulations about taxation, not much is clear due to the corrupt state of the text, but it appears that the Jews themselves are given by Caesar the task of collecting the t a x e s . This decree makes it clear that the situation obtaining at Pompey's time, when the publicans had the responsibility for the collection of the taxes, was no longer in force. Since this is the first testimony we have about it, it is probable that the change took place not in Gabinius' days, as Momigliano maintains, but in Caesar's, as Heichelheim and Rostovtzeff have already suggested. It was not special consideration for the Jews, and we must not forget Caesar's well-known removal of publicani also from A s i a . The presence of the publicans was a particularly oppressive feature in the life of the Roman provinces. Dealing with Macedon, Livy observes: "It was also voted to discontinue the leasing of the Macedonian mines, a source of immense revenue, and of rural estates, for these could not be farmed without a contractor, and where there was a contractor, there either the ownership 14
15
16
17
14
Ant. XIV, 7 4 - 7 6 . On P o m p e y ' s and Gabinius' decisions concerning Judaea see V. Burr, "Rom und Judaea im 1. Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Pompeius und die Juden)", ANRW, I, 1, 1972, pp. 8 7 5 - 8 8 6 ; J. Leach, Pompey the Great, London 1978, pp. 9 1 - 9 6 ; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1979, pp. 2 1 6 - 2 1 8 ; Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, pp. 2 0 3 - 2 2 7 . See Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 67. Heichelheim, "Roman Syria", p. 2 3 3 ; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, II, p. 1001. S e e D.C. Braund, "Gabinius, Caesar and the Publicani of Judaea", Klio, 6 5 , 1983, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 4 4 and Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 2 3 9 , note 16. 1 5
1 6
1 7
98
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
by the state lapsed, or no freedom was left to the allied people" (XLV, 18, 3-4). And in Cicero, Ad Q.fr. I, 1, 33, we read: "What bitterness of feeling this question of the publicani causes the allies we have gathered from those citizens who recently ... complained not so much of that duty itself as of certain malpractices on the part of the custom-officers". No doubt, the liberation of Judaea from the publicans was a meaningful political act. On Caesar's dealings with the Roman provinces in Asia while staying at Ephesus, in June 48 BCE, Rice Holmes observes: "As a conqueror, he could afford to win loyalty by conciliation, though he was forced, in order to defray the growing charges of the war, to levy contributions in return. He confirmed a grant of self-government which Sulla had made to Ilium, bestowed the same favour upon Cnidus, and, abolishing the farming of the taxes, from which the provincials had suffered for many years, commuted them for a fixed tribute, which the several communities were to raise themselves. The Ephesians manifested their gratitude by an inscription in which they hailed him as divine...". Caesar's decisions concerning Judaea are similar. From our decree we understand that the heaviness of Roman rule in Judaea was somewhat attenuated, if not completely so. Some scholars maintain that Caesar freed the Jews from the obligation of paying tribute to R o m e , but this has been refuted already by Niese and Viereck. Most regulations laid down by Pompey were probably maintained; only a few of them were changed in favor of the J e w s . Caesar changed a Palestinian land tax in kind, which apparently had existed before his time, into a fourth of the harvest of every second year and gave in addition a port duty at Joppa, which had been payable to Rome before, to the Jewish state in exchange for a yearly payment of 20,675 modii of grain. Rostovtzeff observes that "by these measures Caesar kept the Jews in good humour, secured for himself their support in his projected Parthian war, and filled his military granaries at Sidon. May we go further and suggest that Caesar acted more or less in the same way in Syria also? We know that he bestowed many favors on some of the dynasts of Syria and on several Syrian cities, especially Antioch.... It is perhaps permissible to think that, as he freed 18
19
20
21
22
23
1 8
S e e Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 2 0 2 . Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, pp. 1 7 9 - 1 8 0 . M o m m s e n , Romishce Geschichte, p. 5 0 1 , note 1; Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 203; Rice H o l m e s , The Roman Republic, p. 507. S e e bibliographical details in R o s t o w z e w , Geschichte, p. 4 7 8 , note 316. See also Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 68. See also Stern, Hasmonean Judaea, p. 2 3 9 , note 15. Heichelheim, "Roman Syria", p. 2 3 1 . See also R. Duncan-Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge 1990, p. 189. 1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
5. Ant. XIV,
99
202-210
Asia Minor and Judaea, so he freed Syria for ever from the publicani and entered into direct relations with the cities". Whether Caesar had any personal sympathy for the Jews is doubtful. Mommsen suggests that "Caesar looked forward to the time when the provinces, as such, would disappear, and when a new Helleno-Italic nation should arise in a new and wider home.... The idea of a new Italo-Hellenic empire was not new, but Caesar was the first to grasp it, and systematically to carry it out.... The Jews were numerous and powerful in the city of Rome, and influential everywhere.... The Jew stands in a relation of indifference to the state, clothes himself readily with any nationality ... for this very reason he seemed made for fjie purposes of this new state, which was to be built upon the ruins of a hundred different nationalities, and accordingly Judaism was everywhere protected by Caesar as an effective leaven of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition". Ginsburg, too, emphasizes the role of the Jews in Caesar's "reorganisation grandiose de tout l'ordre politique de Rome, pour combler le precipice qui separait la metropole des peuples soumis a sa domination". Bernard wonders whether the gratitude of Caesar to Hyrcanus was "une decision mue par les circonstances immediates ou au contraire un acte reflechi ou apparait la lucidite politique du dictateur en train de jeter les bases d'un nouvel Empire promis a un long avenir" and points out that Hild sees in Caesar's grants to the Jews a prefiguring of the French laicity under the third republic ("Ces faveurs octroyees par le gouvernement de Cesar aux communautes juives de l'empire... demontrent non moins clairement que Cesar, rompant en matiere de politique religieuse avec toutes les vieilles traditions, au risque de se rendre impopulaire, devancait de beaucoup non pas seulement les politiques les plus clairvoyants de son temps, mais les plus avises des ages a venir.... Dans leur ensemble elles [les diverses mesures prises par lui] sont l'application d'un veritable systeme de politique religieuse au sens moderne du mot: elles organisent l'Eglise libre [sic] au sein de l'Etat romain, lequel est autant un organisme religieux que politique"). 24
25
26
27
28
All the measures taken by Caesar in favor of the Jews, however, — the confirmation of the traditional rights, the exemption from taxes in the sabbatical years and the reduction of taxes, the restitution of territories, the exemption from winter-quarters and minor privileges such as that of sitting 24 Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, II, p. 1001. T. M o m m s e n , Rome: from the Earliest Times to 44 B.C., ed. A . C . Howland, III, N e w York 1939, pp. 3 9 1 - 3 9 2 . M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, pp. 8 5 - 1 0 3 . J.-E. Bernard, "Transferts historiographiques: Josephe, Cesar et les privileges juifs", Bulletin du Centre de recherche francais de Jerusalem, 2, 1998, p. 17. J.A. Hild, "Les Juifs a R o m e devant l'opinion et dans la litterature", REJ, 8, 1884, pp. 3 5 - 3 6 . The v i e w s expressed by scholars from the middle of the nineteenth century concerning Caesar's policy toward the Jews are quoted and examined by Bernard, "Transferts historiographiques" (supra, note 2 7 ) , pp. 1 8 - 2 4 . 2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
100
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
together with the senators "as spectators of the contests of gladiators and wild beasts" and that of entering the senate chamber and getting an answer from the senate within ten days — are well attested also in the case of other peoples, and are understood against the background of the military assistance given to Caesar by Hyrcanus and by Antipater during the Alexandrian campaign. The Romans always rewarded political loyalty and military assistance generously, especially in dangerous t i m e s . We should also not overestimate the meaning of Caesar's measures. The restitution of territories which had formerly belonged to a people or to a city belonged to a common Roman policy. Examples are numerous. As early as in the period between 197 and 194 BCE, the Roman consul T. Quinctius Flamininus writes to the Chyretiai: "Whatever properties have been lost by you in land and buildings, of those (now) belonging to the public (domain) of the Romans, all of them we give to your city, in order that also in these matters you may learn our nobility of character and because in no way at all have we wished to be avaricious, considering goodwill and concern for our reputation to be of supreme importance" (RDGE no. 33 = RGE no. 4, 11. 9-14). In a senatus consultum concerning Thisbai, too, we find: "Decreed. Concerning the territory, buildings and things belonging to them... it was decreed that they should be permitted to possess what had been theirs" (RDGE no. 2 = RGE no. 21, 170 BCE, 11. 24-26). We also have a decree of the senate concerning Stratonikeia from 81 BCE, which states: "[and that Pedasos (?)], Themessos, Keramos and the places, [villages, harbors and the revenues of the] cities which Lucius Corn[elius Sulla, imperator,]... [added and assigned to them, that] they should be permitted to possess (all of these)... about this matter a decree was passed as follows:... whatever (things)... Lucius Sul[la...] added and assigned to them, (consisting of) [communities (?), revenues] lands, villages and harbors, [these they are to be permitted to keep] (RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63, 11. 5 3 - 9 9 , 81 BCE). In the Antonian law concerning Termessus Maior in Pisidia, too, (68 BCE), we read: "Whatever lands, whatever pieces of land or buildings, public or private, within their borders, belong or belonged to the citizens of Termessus Maior in Pisidia in the consulships of L. Marcius and Sex. Iulius, and whatever islands belong or belonged to them... and whatever of those things they held, possessed, used or enjoyed in their consulships ... all those things the citizens of Termessus [Maior in Pisidia are to hold,] possess, use and enjoy... (col. I, 111. 12-26: Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 335). Another parallel is constituted by the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus passed in 39 B C E , where we read: "and (it is agreed) that the community, and the citizens of Plarasa and Aphrodisias are to have, hold, use and enjoy all those lands, places, 29
30
2 9
See above, pp. 4 6 - 4 7 .
3 0
On this date, see F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate", JRS, 6 3 , 1973, p. 56.
5. Ant. XIV,
101
202-210
buildings, villages, estates, strongpoints, pastures, revenues which they had when they entered the friendship of the Roman people". Similar formulas appear in the treaty with Mytilene: "[whatever possessions,... they ruled over and possessed [...] all these they [shall] possess (RDGE no. 26 = RGE no. 97, 25 BCE, col. d, 11. 22-26). In spite of what we read in these documents, it appears that the restitution of territories was not necessarily pure generosity on the part of Rome. Concerning Roman policy in Greece, Sherk observes that "the returning of confiscated property appears superficially to be an act of generosity, a fine gesture to prove the good will and altruistic character of Romans, but actually it is a very practical and clever maneuver to convince the wealthy classes that Rome will look after their interests. It was designed basically, I think, to cause the wealthy to look to Rome as their protector and their patronus. Thus the Roman policy in Greece at this time was, as Badian has so vividly illustrated,... to plant the seed of Roman paternalism everywhere". 31
32
3 1
Aphr. no. 8, 11. 5 8 - 6 0 . The same is repeated on 11. 7 0 - 7 2 ; see the commentary by Reynolds on pp. 8 5 , 87 on the reason for the repetition, or "summing up towards the end". Sherk, RDGE, p. 2 1 3 . 3 2
6. Ant. X I V , 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 4 4 B C E , February 9
This seems to be a fragment of the theme of a senatus consultum concerning the Jews, passed, at Caesar's initiative, in 44 BCE, probably on February 9.
Bibliography J.T. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro Iudaeis facta e losepho collecta et commentario historico-critico illustrata, Lipsiae 1768, pp. 2 8 3 - 2 9 4 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 2 9 , 2 3 4 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 2 8 , 1879, p. 226; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 101; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 141; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, Leipzig 1914, pp. 12-1 A; A. Momigliano, "Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano," ASNP, ser. I, 3, 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 1 6 - 1 8 = 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 , 1 9 = 2 0 1 ; E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, X V I , 1969, p. 1062; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 2 7 3 , note 2 3 ; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 4 2 , note 68; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 173, 197; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Ant. X I V , 1 8 5 - 2 6 7 : a Problem of Authenticity", in: CSS, pp. 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 ; eadem, "Caesar's Decrees in the Antiquities: Josephus' Forgeries or Authentic Roman Senatus Consulta!", Athenaeum, 84, 1996, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 ; eadem, "When Was the Title "Dictator Perpetuus" Given to Caesar?", AC, 69, 1996, pp. 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 .
211
212
(x. 7) rdioq Kaioap, amoKpdxcop SiKidxcop TO Teiapxov vnaxoq TE TO 7t£u.7t:Tov, SiKTaTCop drco5e8eiY|ievo<; 8id plot), 'koyovq enoiriaaTo 7 t e p i TCOV 5 i K a i c o v TCOV TpKavo\) TOIJ 'AA,£^dv8po\) dpxiepecoq IouSaicov Kai eOvdpxou TOlo^>TO^)(;• TCOV 7ip6 e\iov cnjTOKpaTopcov ev xaiq £nap%iaiq u.apTi)pr|cdvTCOv Tpicavcp d p / i e p e t 'Io-uSaicov Kai 'Io\)8aioi<; e m TE O\)YK?UITO\) Kai 5r|jj.ov) 'Pcojxaicov, ei)xapiGTr|cavT6<; xe TO\) 8ruio\) Kai Tfj<; CTUYKATITOV a\)TOi<;, KaA,co<; e.%ei Kai fiiidq dTtouvrnioveijeiv Kai 7r.povoetv cmco<; TpKavco Kai TCO 80vet TCOV 'Io\)8aicov Kai TOI<; 8.
P.
10. ci7to|j.vr|uveijeiv V.
5
10
6. Ant. XIV,
211-212
103
TpKavov 7caiaiv vno a\)YK?if|to\) Kai 8r|uov P(oumcov d^ia xfjc; rcpoc; r\\id.q e w o i a c ; a i j x t o v Kai cov e i j e p y e T T i o a v fi|ia<; x^P ^ dviarcoSoGfj. 1
Translation Gaius Caesar, Imperator, Dictator for the fourth time, Consul for the fifth time, designated Dictator for life, made the following speech concerning the rights of Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews. Inasmuch as the high commanders in the provinces before me have testified on behalf of Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, and of the Jews themselves before the senate and the people of Rome, and the people and senate have expressed thanks to them, it is fitting that we too should be mindful of this and provide that there be given by the senate and people of Rome to Hyrcanus and the Jewish people and the sons of Hyrcanus a token of gratitude worthy of their loyalty to us and of the benefits which they have conferred upon us. Commentary 1-3. Caesar's titles, "Imperator, Dictator for the fourth time, Consul for the fifth time, designated Dictator for life" enable us to establish a precise date. The year was 44 BCE, when Caesar was consul for the fifth time (MRR, II, p. 315). Concerning the day and the month, we know that on January 26 he still celebrated an ovatio as Dictator for the fourth time (see sources in MRR, II, pp. 317-318), while we already find him Dictator perpetuus at the time of the Lupercalia, on February 15, as Cicero implies (Phil. 2. 87: see S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford 1971, pp. 331-340). (Alfdldi's suggestion to place the assumption of the perpetual dictatorship later, at the end of February or the beginning of March, which is based on an inscription found on a coin, has been rejected by Broughton, MRR, III, 1986, p. 107). Caesar was therefore designated "Dictator for life" some time between January 26 and February 15 of the year 44 BCE (MRR, II, pp. 317-318 and Elizabeth Rawson, "Caesar: Civil War and Dictatorship", CAH , IX, 1994, p. 463, note 245. On the historical aspect, see Marta Sordi, "L'ultima dittatura di Cesare", Aevum, 50, 1976, pp. 151-153). This period of twenty days represents therefore the terminus post quern of our text. 2
3. Xoyovq eTioifiaaxo is a standard formula in Greek inscriptions preserving Roman senate decrees, where it translates the Latin quod... verba fecit and is followed by an indirect statement (see Sherk, RDGE, p. 14). It usually appears in the theme of the senatus consulta, and refers to the introductory speech usually made by the magistrate or magistrates who laid the matter before the senate, but also, and not infrequently, to the speech made by the
104
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
foreign envoys which precedes the discussion in the senate. (See RDGE nos. 2, 11. 6, 17, 27, 32, 36; 5, 1. 24; 7, 1. 42; 9, 1. 16; 10 A, 1. 3; 10 B, 11. 5, 9; 11, 1. 5; 14, 1. 41; 15, 11. 56, 62; 18, 1. 73; 22, 1. 5; 23, 1. 19; 26, col. b, 1. 16; 27, 1. 12). The relatio often starts with the words: "Quod bonum felix faustum fortunatunique sit populo romano Quiritium, referimus ad vos patres conscripti" and ends with the words: "de ea re quid fieri placeat". For other formulas preserved in literary sources, see Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", p. 1053. 3 - 4 . 7 i e p i xcov 8iKaicov. Unfortunately, nothing is said of the rights themselves. They may be identified with old rights which were to be confirmed or with new ones, which could have appeared in the next sections of the document which are not quoted by Josephus. 4 - 5 . On Hyrcanus and the title ethnarch, see above, document no. 1, 1. 5. 5-6. One of these "high commanders in the provinces before me" may have been Gabinius. According to Ant. XIV, 98-100, when he came to Egypt to restore Ptolemy XI Auletes to the throne in 55 BCE, Gabinius "was supplied with grain, arms and money by Antipater, who also won over the Jews above Pelusium to his side and made them his allies to act as guards of the entrances to Egypt". It is also possible that the text refers to other commanders who were in Judaea before Gabinius. Krebs thinks of Pompey and Scaurus. Hyrcanus helped Pompey when he was going to take Jerusalem "contra seditiosos Iudaeos...; Scauro, qui, expeditione bellica in Arabiam suscepta, summa omnium rerum inopia laboraret, Antipatru, Hyrcani iussu, frumentum, aliaque necessaria, e Iudaea suppeditasse" (Decreta Romanorum, pp. 2 9 1 - 2 ) . The possibility also exists that the expression used by Caesar had only a general meaning. Rosenthal suggests that the testimony of the many "high commanders who testified in favour of Hyrcanus" is not to be taken seriously. It rather refers to the loyalty and zeal of the Jews in favor of Caesar in the rest of the Roman world ("Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 226). 6. ev xatc; £7tapxiai<;. Petitus' suggestion that we read here £v xoic; an dp%fjc;, which would mean "cum ii, qui ante me fuerunt imperatores, quando verba fecerunt de rebus a se in magistratu gestis, in senatu, et apud Romanum testimonium dederunt", is rejected by Krebs, who observes: "sed alibi Vir sane doctissimus, sed ad emendandum minime natus, audiendus est; hie cave eum audias" (Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 292). 6-7. On (xapx'upEiv xivi, which means aliquem laudare, praedicare, see Krebs, Decreta Romanorum, p. 293. 8-9. £i)xapioxf|oavx6<; x e xovj 5t|jlio\» Kai xfjc; cruYKArjxoi) auxoic;. In the first century BCE, military assistance, especially in times of danger, is often given as the reason which prompted Roman magistrates to confer grants. See document no. 1, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 , 46^17. 9 - 1 0 . KaA,co<; £%£i. A similar expression, KaA-coc; £%ov Eoxiv, is found in
6. Ant. XIV,
211-212
105
the edict issued by Octavian and Antony after the battle of Philippi: Aphr. no. 7, 1. 8. 11-12. Kai xoic; TpKavou 7caioiv. On Hyrcanus' family status, see above, document no. 1, commentary to 1. 21. 13. The e u v o i a of peoples and cities which had been loyal to the Roman government, especially in dangerous times, is often mentioned in Roman official documents, both in the republican period (loca citata in RDGE, p. 375 and Aphr. no. 8, 39 BCE, 11. 18, 25) and in the imperial era (see Ann.Ep. 1993, no. 1462). 14. The verb euepyexeco is often used in Roman official documents. See RDGE nos. 26 B 1. 9 / 6 5 A, 1. 17; 65 D, 1. 46; 68,1. 26. This document preserves the speech made by Caesar before the senate in which he commended the loyalty of Hyrcanus II. The expression Xoyovc, £7r.oifjoaxo 7 t e p i , followed by an indirect statement, usually appears in the introductory part of the theme of Roman senatus consulta. The text, however, is preserved in an extremely fragmentary way. It lacks the prescript and we do not find the concluding clause 7 t e p i xouxoi) xou 7r.pdyu,axo<;... ouxox; e5oc;8v, which served to introduce the decree proper. This is therefore the first section of the theme of a senatus consultum, i.e. Caesar's proposal of a senatus consultum, which took place at some point between January 26 and February 15 of the year 44 BCE. Now from document no. 8 we learn that a senatus consultum concerning the Jews was passed, on Caesar's intiative, in 44 BCE, on February 9: "As for the decisions rendered by Gaius Caesar, with the concurrence of the senate, concerning the Jews, which there was not time to have registered in the Treasury ... they were dated the fifth day before the Ides of February in the Temple of Concord" (no. 8, 11. 24-25). "The fifth day before the Ides of February" means February 9. Since it does not appear probable that two senatus consulta concerning the Jews were passed in the same year and in the same month, it may be suggested that our fragment should be identified with a part of that senatus consultum. In fact, February 9, the date on which the senate decree mentioned in document no. 8 was passed, stands exactly between the terminus post quern, January 26, and the terminus ante quern, February 15. This means that document no. 6 may be a fragment of the theme of the senatus consultum passed by the senate on February 9 of the year 44 BCE, which there was no time to register in the Treasury. 1
This identification allows us to draw an important conclusion concerning the date in which the title "designated Dictator for life" was given to Caesar. 1
For a link between the t w o documents, see also Momigliano, "Ricerche", pp. 1 6 - 1 7 = pp. 1 9 8 - 9 ; Schurer, The History, I, p. 2 7 3 , note 2 3 , and Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 197.
106
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
The fact that Caesar is called "designated Dictator for life" in a document dated 44, February 9 means that February 9, and not February 15, is the terminus ante quern of Caesar's assumption of the title. 2
2
S e e my essay "When W a s the Title 'Dictator 251-253.
Perpetuus'
Given to Caesar?", pp.
7. Ant. X I V , 2 1 3 - 2 1 6 B e t w e e n 4 2 B C E (after October 23) and 41 B C E
Letter written by a Roman magistrate who may be identified with Octavian to the magistrates, council and people of a Greek town probably identifiable with Paros, confirming the'rights of the Delian Jews "to live in accordance with their customs, to contribute money to common meals and sacred rites, and to assemble and feast in accordance with their native customs and ordinances". Bibliography I. Goldschmidt, De Iudaeorum apud Romanos Condicione, Halis Saxonae 1866, p. 15; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 1 3 - 2 1 7 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 2 8 , 1879, p. 179; T. Homolle, "Les Romains a Delos", BCH, 8, 1884, p. 150; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 101; E. Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen Volk.es im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, III, Leipzig 1909, p. 57; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans V empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 142; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, pp. 167, 1 6 9 - 1 7 0 ; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 97; A. Momigliano, "I nomi delle prime ' S i n a g o g h e ' romane e la condizione giuridica della comunita in Roma sotto Augusto", RMI, 6, 1 9 3 1 - 2 , p. 287; S.L. Guterman, Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome, London 1951, pp. 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, pp. 9 1 - 2 ; A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1964, p. 356; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 116, note 36; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 135, note 52; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 ; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 252; H. Castritius, "Die Haltung R o m s gegeniiber den Juden in der ausgehenden Republik und in der Prinzipatszeit", in: Judentum und Antisemitismus von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, eds. T. Klein, V. Losemann, G. Mai, Diisseldorf 1984, p. 21; A.M. Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, pp. 1 2 9 0 - 1 ; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 113; eadem, "Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule: a N e w Approach," in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. W . S . Green, V: Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context, Brown Judaic Studies 3 2 , Atlanta 1985, p. 2 3 ; L.M. White, "The D e l o s Synagogue Revisited; Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora", HTR, 8 0 , 1987, p. 146; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 680; Y. Yavetz, Cesar et son image, Paris 1990, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 ; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Who Wrote a Letter Concerning the Delian Jews?", RB, 103, 1996, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 3 ; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, pp. 2 6 8 - 2 7 0 .
108
//. The Documents 213
214
Quoted
by
Josephus
(x. 8) 'IOIJAICX; rdioc; oxpaxryyoc; imaxcx; Pcoumcov riapicov dp%o\xn (3o\>A.fi 8f|u.cp xaipeiv. evexv%ov uxn oi IovSaioi ev Af|Xcp Kai xiveq xcov TtapoiKCOv IouSaicov, Ttapovxcov Kai xcov \)|j,Exepcov TupeoPecov, Kai eve^dviaav cbq \)|i£i<; \j/r|(()ia|iaxi KcoA,t)£X£ a\)xo\)(; xoiq Kaxpioiq EGEOI Kai iepoic; xpf\aQai. £(ioi xoivuv o\)K dpEOKEi Kaxd xcov f|[i£xEpcov (j)iA,cov Kai GDuu.dxcov xoiaDxa Y ^ ^ \|/r|(|)iG|iaxa, Kai KcoMeoGai ai)xo\)<; £fjv Kaxd xd aijxcov EGTI Kai %pri|iaxa eiq cvvbeinva Kai xd i£pd Eio(()£p£lV, XOWO 7UOIEIV a\)XC0V |IT|8' £V 'PCO^TJ K£KCOA/U|I£VCOV. Kai yap rdioq Kaioap 6 fijiexepoc; oxpaxrryog Kai imaxoc;, ev xcp 8iaxdY|iaxi KCOA/UCOV Qiaaovq a\)vdY£cr6ai Kaxd 7t6A.iv, |i6voi)<; xotixouq o\)K EKCOXDOEV OI3X£ xpfpaxa cruveio^epeiv ovxe auvSeirtva itoieiv. 6|ioico<; Se KaYcb xoix; aXkovc, Qiacovc, KCOMCOV, xouxoic; UXSVOK; £7iixp£7ico Kaxd xd 7cdxpia £9r| Kai vouxuxx ouvdYeaGai x£ Kai eoxiaaGai. Kai v\iaq ouv KaA,co<; e^ei, e i xi Kaxd xcov r||a.EX8pcov (j>i?icov Kai av|i|j,d%cov \)/f|(|)iaixa e.7toir|aax£, xoi3xo dK-upcooai 8id xfjv icepi f|}ia<; avxcov dpexf|v Kai euvoiav. v e a
215
216
5
a i
10
15
20
1.
'Iovivioq r a i o q coni. Petitus; norcAaoc; Z e p o m ^ i o q O v a x i a q coni. Mendelssohn; Ouifkoi; Tdioi; coni. Gutschmidt; n6n:A,io<; ZepomJuoi; 'IaaupiKoq coni. Lange. 1. m o a o crcpaTrryoq P. 6 axpaTrryoq F: del. Lange; aTpairryo^ L A M V . 1. OTpaxTiyoi; imaTO<;: dictator et consul Lat.: dveiinattx; coni. Lange. 2. riapiavcov codd. riapicov coni. Schurer. 4. \)u.exep(ov. rme-cepcov LV. 13. axpattiyoq Kai i3rcaxo<; codd. atpaTrry6<; wtaxoc; coni. Mendelssohn. 1 8 - 1 9 . iaiaaBai A M V ; xe Kai e a x i a a 6 a i o m . Lat. 21. dKupcoaai. dK\)p(o0fjvat P. dK^pcoaexe V.
Translation 1
Julius Gaius, supreme commander and consul of the Romans, to the magistrates, council and people of Paros, greeting. The Jews in Delos and some of the neighbouring Jews, some of your envoys also being present, have appealed to me and declared that you are preventing them by statute 2
1
"Praetor": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 6 3 .
2
"Parium": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 6 3 .
7. Ant. XIV,
213-216
109
from observing their national customs and sacred rites. Now it displeases me that such statutes should be made against our friends and allies and that they are forbidden to live in accordance with their customs and to contribute money to common meals and sacred rites, for this they are not forbidden to do even in Rome. For example, Gaius Caesar, our supreme commander and consul, by edict forbade religious societies to assemble in the city, but these people alone he did not forbid to do so or to collect contributions of money or to hold common meals. Similarly do I forbid other religious societies but permit these people alone to assemble and feast in accordance with their native customs and ordinances. And if you have made any statutes against our friends and allies, you will do well to revoke them because of their worthy deeds on our behalf and their goodwill toward us. 3
3
"Consular Praetor": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 6 3 .
Commentary 1. 'Ioi>A,io<; rdio<;. Since the Latin manuscript calls him "dictator and consul", we find in modern research the suggestion that he is the well known Gaius Caesar the Dictator himself (see Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews, p. 167; Rajak, "Was there a Roman Charter?", p. 113; White, "The Delos Synagogue", p. 146). This identification, however, seems contradicted by the fact that further on in the same letter (on 11. 12-13), Gaius Caesar is mentioned as a different person, separate from the author of the letter: "For example Gaius Caesar, our consul, by edict forbade religious societies.... Similarly do I forbid religious societies..." (11. 12-16). (Johnson et al. observe that "the use of the third person here, succeeded by that of the first person in the following sentence, seems strange, if Caesar is the author of this letter": Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 91). Another identification is therefore called for. Since no Roman official has been found by the name of Iulios Gaios, the need has been felt by scholars to emend the text, as often happens when no explanation is available that makes sense from the historical point of view. The title of the magistrate, vnaxoq, has been changed to avQvitaxoq (following Lange, Viereck and others: see Niese's edition, p. 278, and ed. Loeb, VII, pp. 560-1) and the author of this letter has been identified with 'Iouvioq Tdioi; (Petitus); 0\)tpio<; Taioq (Gutschmid); rioTu^ioq EepomTiiot; Override; (Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 212; Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 179) and TlonXioq Zepo'uiA.ioq 'IcompiKoq (Lange, followed by Yavetz, Cesar et son image, p. 108). Modern scholars conclude that the text is corrupt, so that both the identity of the Roman official who wrote the letter and the date of the document remain uncertain. See Schiirer, Geschichte, III, p. 110; Juster, Les Juifs, p. 142; Schalit, King Herod, p. 356, note 119-120; Smallwood,
110
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
The Jews, p. 135; Schurer, The History, p. 116, note 36; Saulnier, "Lois romaines", pp. 189-190; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 195, note 41. For a possible identification of the writer of this letter with Octavian, see below, pp. 114-115. 1-2. oxpaTriYOi; imaxoc; Pcofiaicov. Juster's translation praetor pro consule is not the only possible one. "In complex formulae like oxpaxrryoc; imaxoc;", Mason observes, "it appears that axpaxrrYdc; retains the general sense "commander", and is made more precise by the additional term, so that oxpaxrryoc; a37caxo<; is a consul who was at the same time a supreme commander" (H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974, pp. 155-160). Saulnier translates this expression "a consul who is a supreme commander, or a governor/commander (who is) consul" ("Lois romaines", p. 190, note 136). In fact, we notice that the Latin manuscript has consul only. Saulnier is correct. When the title is mentioned again in the same document on 1. 13, all the Greek manuscripts give oxpaxriYOc; Kai "UTcaxoq. Mendelssohn emends it to axpaxrryoc; imaxoc; and Niese hesitates, putting Kai between brackets. Kai is then deleted by Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 562). But there seems to be no reason for changing the reading of the manuscripts. 2. riapiavcov a p / o u o i . If we follow the Greek manuscripts, Troad Parium is mentioned here, and this is the view maintained by Homolle, "Les Romains a Delos", p. 150, note 4; Juster, The Jews, p. 142; Rajak, "Was there a Charter?", p. 113; eadem, "Jewish Rights", p. 23, and Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 13. Troad Parium, however, East of the Hellespont, is very distant from Delos, which is dealt with in our letter, and it is difficult to imagine that relations were maintained between the two places. That is why instead of riapiavcov, Schurer suggests reading Flapicov {Geschichte, III, p. 57), a view shared by Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 189 and by Yavetz, Cesar et son image, p. 108. In this case, Cycladic Paros would be meant here, which is at a short distance, c. 10 miles, from Delos. If we have a mistake here, this is not a unique case. On similar mistakes appearing in Greek inscriptions, see below, pp. 3 6 4 - 5 , note 31. As for the magistrates to whom the letter is written, see A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, pp. 6 7 7 - 6 8 0 on the executive officers of the Greek cities in Asia Minor in Roman times. 2. Roman official letters always open with the name of the sender in the nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative (often the name of the city in the genitive, followed by the specific city magistrates or other governing bodies in the dative, but the order is not rigid), and finally the word "greeting". See above, p. 18. 3. oi Iou8aiot ev AY|A,cp. A Jewish community at Delos is already mentioned in / Mace. 15:16-23. On the synagogue of Delos and on the relations between Jews and Samaritans at Delos, see A.T. Kraabel, "The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since
7. Ant. XIV,
213-216
111
Sukenik", ANRW, II, 1 9 , 1, 1 9 7 9 , p. 4 9 1 ; P. Bruneau, "Les Israelites de Delos et la juiverie delienne", BCH, 1 0 6 , 1 9 8 2 , pp. 4 6 5 - 5 0 4 ; White, "The Delos Synagogue", pp. 1 3 3 - 1 6 0 ; SEG XXXII, 1 9 8 2 , nos. 8 0 9 - 8 1 0 .
6 - 7 . xoiq 7taxpioi<; eGeoi Kai iepoi<; xpfjcGai. Similar expressions often appear in contemporary Greek inscriptions. In the senatus consultum de Stratonicensibus, for example, we find [ 8 i K a t o i < ; xe K]ai vouoiq Kai £0io"u|oi<; xou; iSioic;, oi<; expcovxo e7idv]co, 6n(oq xP&vxai (RDGE no. 1 8 , Frag. E, 1. 4 9 ) and olq] xe VOUXDK; eGiauoic; xe ISIOK; rcpoxepov [e%pcovxo, xot>]xoi<; xpdoGcoaav (RDGE no. 1 8 , Frag. H, 1. 9 1 ) , which translates the Latin ut legibus et iustis et moribus uterentur. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 1 5 . For the legal value of these expressions, see below, pp. 4 6 1 - 7 . 7. ejioi... dpeoicei. This verb, used in an impersonal way, without uoi, also appears in Octavian's letter to the magistrates of Rhosos, written between 4 2 and 3 0 BCE (RDGE no. 5 8 , 11. 6 3 , 7 0 ) , while in his edictum de pecuniis repetundis we find d p e o K e i xfi ftoi)?Lfj (RDGE, no. 3 1 , 4 BCE, 11. 9 6 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 2 ) . In inscriptions written in the republican period, the verb usually'appears when the senate is speaking: xfj <xi)YK?ir|XG) d p e o K e i , which translates the Latin senatui placere (RDGE, nos. 2 6 , col. c, 1. 3 ; 2 8 B, 1. 6 ; 5 8 , 11. 4 4 , 6 3 , 7 0 ) . See Sherk, RDGE, p. 1 5 . The Roman intervention concerning the Jews does not represent an isolated case. See the sources quoted by White attesting Roman intervention in Delos also in matters concerning other foreign groups ("The Delos Synagogue", p. 1 4 7 , note 6 0 ) . 7 - 8 . The alliance mentioned here is probably that made in Caesar's time, which is mentioned in documents nos. 1, 1. 2 5 ; 2 , 1 . 7 and 5 , 1 . 1 3 . 1 0 . %pf||iaxa eiq cruvSeuwa. On the right of the Jews to administer their own finances, see Schurer, The History, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1 9 8 6 , p. 1 1 8 . Later, Jewish monies are also often mentioned in Roman official documents written in Augustus' days (nos. 2 2 - 2 7 ) . The Jewish practice of holding common banquets is attested both by archeological evidence and by rabbinic literature. A triclinium, or dining hall, is mentioned in synagogue inscriptions from Caesarea and Stobi in Macedonia. See L.I. Levine, "Ancient Synagogues: A Historical Introduction", Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L.I. Levine, Jerusalem 1 9 8 1 , p. 3 . On communal dinners, see also Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 1 4 5 . In non-Jewish society, too, banquets were part both of cultic ceremonies (see the ritual banquet in the cult of Serapis held at Paros in imperial times: SEG XXVI, 1 9 7 6 , no. 9 6 8 ) and of the celebrations of historical events (together with the wearing of wreaths, processions, sacrifices, prayer, singing of festival songs, games, orations and dramatic performances referring to the events in question). See SEG XLI, 1 9 9 1 , no. 1 7 7 1 . 1 2 - 1 3 . On the title GxpaxTry6<; imaxoq, or axpaxryyoc; Kai vnaxoq, see above, commentary to 1. 1. 1 3 - 1 4 . KOAAJCOV Gidaotx; GwdyeoGai Kaxd rcoAav. This information is
112
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
confirmed by Suetonius, who states that Caesar prohibited the existence of most collegia: cuncta collegia, praeter antiquum constituta distraxit (Divus Julius, 4 2 ) . Caesar's decision probably took the form of a decree (and not of a law) passed in 4 7 or 4 6 BCE. See Yavetz, Cesar, pp. 9 8 , 9 9 , 1 0 7 - 1 1 0 . Broughton does not exclude also 4 5 BCE (MRR, II, p. 2 9 4 ) . On the term Sidtayixa, see document no. 2 , commentary to 1. 1 5 . 1 4 - 1 5 . (IOVOIX; Tomoix; OTJK e.KcoA'uoev. From this passage we understand that Caesar's exemption of the Jews from his ban against collegia was in force also concerning diaspora Jews. See Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt-am-Main 1 9 8 3 , p. 2 5 2 . The reason why the Jews were exempted from Caesar's ban is clear: the collegia exempted were those which did not come under the head of coetus factiosorum hominum, and the Jews had apparently nothing to do with internal Roman political struggles. According to Small wood, in Leg. 1 5 6 Philo, too, implies that the Jews' right of assembly and of sending money to Jerusalem were pre-Augustan (E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1 9 7 0 , pp. 2 0 5 , 2 3 6 ) . 1 6 - 1 7 . OUXHON; 8e Kdycb xoix; aXkovq Gidooix; KCOMCOV. If the writer of this letter may be identified with Octavian (see below, pp. 1 1 4 - 5 ) , then this is the first instance, chronologically speaking, in which we find mention of his policy concerning the collegia. Suetonius informs us that a law against collegia promulgated or revived by Augustus abolished all collegia without discrimination, but at the same time authorized the organization of the old associations already exempted by Caesar (Plurimae factiones titulo collegii novi'ad nullius non facinoris societatem coibant, igitur... collegia praeter antiqua et legitima dissolvit: Suetonius, Divus Aug., 3 2 ) , provided they received the necessary permit from the senate. This permit was to be granted only to those who were not likely to disturb the peace of the state (see G. La Piana, "Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire", HTR, 2 0 , 4 , 1 9 2 7 , p. 2 3 7 ) . The passage of Suetonius is confirmed by CIL VI, 1, no. 2 1 9 3 . Yavetz observes that the collegia legitima were those which possessed a legal existence by virtue of Caesar's decree. On the different kinds of collegia existing in Rome, see Yavetz, Cesar, pp. 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 . The exemption of the Jews from Augustus' ban against the collegia is mentioned also by Philo: "He (Augustus) ordered that the Jews alone should be permitted by them (the governors of the provinces in Asia) to assemble in synagogues. These gatherings, he said, were not based on drunkenness and carousing to promote conspiracy and so to do grave injury to the cause of peace, but were schools of temperance and justice where men while practicing virtue subscribed the annual first-fruits to pay for the sacrifices..." (whether Augustus himself defined Jewish gatherings as schools of temperance may obviously be doubted, and the same Philo observes: "For these were certainly the substance if not the actual words of his instructions": Leg. 3 1 2 - 3 ) . Momigliano suggests that the oldest synagogues in Rome took their names
7. Ant. XIV,
213-216
113
at this time, when their continued existence was again officially sanctioned (Momigliano, "I nomi delle prime 'Sinagoghe' romane", pp. 285-286). See also Schurer, The History, III, 1 (supra, commentary to 1. 10), pp. 9 6 - 9 7 . 16-17. Giaooi or epavoi were private associations which were independent in their internal organization, and therefore relied for finance on the contributions of their members. See Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. I l l , note 22. In the Greek world, Giaooq, together with KOIVOV, was the formal designation for professional guilds as well as for religious associations (see White, "The Delos Synagogue", p. 153, note 80). See also F. Poland, Geschichte der griechischen Vereinswesen, Leipzig 1960 (non vidi), and Saulnier, "Lois romaines", pp. 190-1, on the relationship between Giaooi arid collegia, and p. 191, note 146, on the difference between Giaooi and 7toA,ixeuu.axa. Against Goodenough, who deduces from this passage that the Jews constituted an organization for mystic celebration (Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, VI, New York 1956, p. 206), see L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Berlin-New York 1984, p. 511. Momigliano translates "collegi religiosi privati" ("I nomi delle prime 'Sinagoghe' romane", p. 287) and Luderitz suggests that Giaooc; stands here for collegium: G. Luderitz, "What is the politeuma?", Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. J.W. van Henten, P.W. van der Horst, Leiden-New York-Koln 1994, p. 214. On the differences which existed, however, between synagogues and collegia, see Juster, Les Juifs, pp. 413-424; La Piana, "Foreign Groups in Rome" (supra, commentary to 11. 16-17), pp. 348-351; Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio (supra, commentary to 11. 14-15), p. 205; eadem, The Jews, pp. 133-136. Other terms attested in contemporary sources to designate the Jewish communities were TcoAixeuuct, KaxoiKia, Xaoq, eGvoq, auvoSoq, ODvaYcoyrw and universitas. See Schurer, The History, III, 1, pp. 8 7 - 9 1 . 17-19. Kaxd xd 7cdxpia eGn Kai vouiva cuvdyeoGai xe Kai eaxiaoGai. Concerning these rights, see below, pp. 4 3 0 - 4 3 3 . 19. KaXCbc, e%eiv. On this expression, see document no. 6, commentary to 11. 9 - 1 0 . 2 1 - 2 2 . Sid xfiv 7cepi i][iaq avxcov dpexfjv Kai euvoiav. Phrases of this kind often appear in Roman documents written both in the republican period (see document no. 6, commentary to 1. 13) and the imperial era (see, for example, Tiberius' and Germanicus' letters to the yepovaia, of Ephesus (D. Knibbe, "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII", JOAI, 62, 1993, no. 3, p. 113, 1. 23; no. 4, p. 115, 1. 33). They often refer not to specific events, but, generally, to goodwill on the part of the people or the person in question. It is not impossible, however, that here the expression may refer to the military help given by Hyrcanus II to Caesar during his Alexandrian campaign, attested in document no. 1,11. 17-20. In favor of this suggestion is the fact that Augustus still mentions the favorable disposition of the Jews "to the Roman people not only at the present time but also in time past, and especially in the time of
114
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
my father Caesar supreme commander, as has their high priest Hyrcanus" as late as 12 BCE, in his edict concerning the Asian Jews (document no. 22, 11. 4-5). This document is the first quoted by Josephus after the series of decrees and fragments of decrees written in Caesar's time, and it opens the sequence of documents which deal with the Jewish diaspora. The letter bears no date. The only firm point is constituted by the mention of the rights given to the Jews by Caesar, and by their exemption from Caesar's ban against the collegia, which took place in 46 or 45 BCE. Mendelssohn suggests dating this document to 47, between September and December, Viereck to 46 or 45 BCE, and Juster proposes a point in time between 46 and 44 BCE. The identity of the Roman magistrate who wrote this letter, too, has not been clarified, and different solutions have been suggested by modern scholars. 1
2
The title of this official, Gxpaxf|y6<; vnaxoq or oxpaxryyoq Kai imaxoq, as we originally find in the manuscripts on 1. 13 (the Latin manuscript gives consul), is well attested in Greek inscriptions, and according to Mason means "a consul who was at the same time a supreme commander". Now if we look at the list of the consuls of the Roman republic, we find that a Roman consul by the name of Julius Gaios did actually exist. He was also a supreme commander. He is none other than Octavian, the future Augustus. It is well known that Octavian changed his public name a number of times. The first public name is C. Octavius C.f.C.n. With this name we find him praefectus urbi and pontifex in 47 BCE and master of horse designate in 44 BCE. The second name, chronologically speaking, is C. Iulius C.f.C.n. Caesar. By this name he is mentioned by the sources among the consules suffecti in 43 BCE, together with Q. Pedius M.f., C. Carrinas C.f. and P. Ventidius P.f. Bassus. The death of the two Consuls C. Vibius C.f.C.n.Pansa Caetronianus and A. Hirtius led Octavian, in August, to send a deputation of soldiers to demand his election to the consulship. On August 19 he was elected to the consulship. The adoption of Octavian as Caesar's son was immediately confirmed by a curiate law. He then moved back to Cisalpine Gaul to meet the forces of Antony and Lepidus, and in November came to the agreement with them that established all three as triumviri rei publicae constituendae. Under the terms of the agreement Octavian abdicated his consulship on or 3
4
1
Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 216; Viereck, Sermo graecus, Juifs, p. 142. S e e above, commentary on 1. 1. S e e above, commentary to 11. 1-2. S e e sources in MRR, II, p. 2 9 2 . 2
3
4
p. 101; Juster, Les
7. Ant. XIV,
115
213-216
5
before November 2 7 . With this name, "C. Caesar", Octavian also appears in a coinage of his first consulate in 43 found in Gallia Cisalpina and Italy, where he appears with his new name and his titles: C. Caesar Cos. Pont. Aug. The issue belongs to 43 BCE, between August 19 and November 2 7 . This is possibly the "Julius Gaius oxpaxrrydc; xmaxoq" who appears in the text quoted by Josephus, and the period in which he was a consul, 43 BCE, between August 19 and November 27, is the first date one thinks of as the possible date of this letter. First thoughts, however, are not always the best, and raising the right questions is a scholarly undertaking of great value. Prof. Martin Goodman has called my attention to the fact that it is strange that in 43 BCE the Jews of Delos asked help from Octavian, and not from Cassius and Brutus, who were active in the East at the time. He is right, and no answer may be provided if the letter was really written in 43 BCE. It seems therefore that another alternative date must be suggested. 6
7
Again, we shall start from the title, oxpaxryyoi; vnaxoq, which, it appears, could also apply to a magistrate at a moment when he was no longer consul. Julius Caesar, the real one, is also called oxpaxnYoq xmaioq on 1. 13, in spite of the fact that he was not consul at the time in which the letter was written. A precedent may be found in the letter written by T. Quinctius Flaminius to Chyretiai when he was proconsul in Greece, between 197 and 194 BCE. In this letter, preserved in RDGE no. 33 = RGE no. 4, we find on 1. 1 that he has the title oxpaxriYoq UTuaxoc;. He had actually been consul in 198, "but the Greeks", Sherk observes, "continued to call him consul throughout these years". If Octavian could have been called oxpaxryyoc; vnaxoq later than November 43 BCE, then we could think of a moment after Philippi, namely, after October 23 of the year 42 BCE, when Brutus and Cassius no longer represented Roman authority in the East. 8
Then we should explain why we do not find Qeoq accompanying Caesar's name, in spite of the fact that the divinization of Caesar had been carried through at the beginning of 42 B C E . It appears, however, that Caesar is not always called Geoq. In an inscription written in late republican or Augustan times, for e x a m p l e , we find that Caesar is called 6 u,eya<; [Kaioap 6 8iK]xdxcop, but not Geoq. In Augustus' edict to the Asian Jews (document no. 22,1. 5), too, Caesar is not called Geo<;. 9
10
5
MRR, II, p. 336; III, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 ; V. Ehrenberg, A . H . M . Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Oxford 1976, pp. 3 2 , 50. J.B. Giard, "Les monnaies du premier consulat d'Octave", RN, 13, 1 9 7 1 , pp. 9 2 - 9 3 ; M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, I, Cambridge 1974, no. 4 9 0 , nos. 1 - 3 . S e e my essay "Who Wrote a Letter?", p. 2 4 2 . 8 RGE, p. 5. 9 MRR, II, p. 3 5 8 . 10 Aphr. no. 35,11. 2 - 3 . 6
7
116
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus 11
As for Octavian, in 42 BCE he still calls himself C. Iulius C.f.C.n. Caesar. Only in 41 (in 40 according to Ross Taylor), did Octavian insert the words divi filius in his official title, and at about the same time he dropped his praenomen Gaius and assumed in its place the title imperator. But not always. He still calls himself "Gaius Caesar" as late as 2 October 39 B C E . Much important information is given in this letter. This is one of the few instances in which Octavian appears with the name of Julius Gaius, the other ones being represented mainly by coins. Of particular importance also is the fact that Octavian makes it clear in this letter that his policy is a confirmation of Caesar's previous decisions about the Jews: "Gaius Caesar, our consul, by edict forbade religious societies... but these people alone he did not forbid ... Similarly do I forbid other religious societies but permit these people alone to assemble..." (11. 12-19). It therefore constitutes another example of the image which Octavian was interested in promoting of himself as legitimate heir and continuer of Caesar's policy in these y e a r s . This passage therefore shows the continuation and consistency of the Roman policy toward the Jews from Caesar to Augustus, and constitutes the only explicit reference we have to the fact that one and the same policy was implemented toward the Jews in Judaea and in the diaspora: "they should not be forbidden to live in accordance with their customs ... for this they are not forbidden to do even in Rome" (11. 7-11). This text also sheds some light on local eastern history. From the fact that the letter concerning Delian Jews is sent to the magistrates of Paros (according to the reading suggested by Schurer), we understand that Paros was the administrative center responsible for smaller communities such as Delos. More important, we learn that decrees were issued by the councils of Greek cities prohibiting the legitimacy of the Jewish cult. 12
13
14
11
See MRR II, p. 358. See Lily Ross Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middletown 1931, p. 130, and MRR, II, p. 3 7 1 . S e e Reynolds, Aphr., pp. 7 5 - 7 6 and Sherk, RGE, p. 110, note 2. On the political reasons underlying the change of the public names adopted by the future Augustus, see R. S y m e , "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature", Historia, 7, 1958 = Roman Papers, I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, p. 365. See also pp. 3 6 1 - 3 7 7 , 3 6 8 - 3 7 4 and A. Degrassi, "I nomi deH'imperatore Augusto: il 'praenomen imperatoris'", Studi Volterra, V, Milano 1 9 7 1 , pp. 5 7 3 - 5 9 2 = idem, Scritti vari di antichita, HI, Venezia-Trieste 1967, pp. 3 5 3 - 3 7 1 . See A. Alfoldi, "La divinisation de Cesar dans la politique d'Antoine et l'Octavien entre 4 4 et 4 0 avant J.C.", RN, 15, 1973, pp. 1 1 7 - 1 2 2 , and P. White, "Julius Caesar in Augustan Rome", Phoenix, 4 2 , 1988, pp. 3 3 4 - 3 5 6 . Later, the issue became more complicated. On Augustus' ambivalent attitude towards the dictator, see E. Frezouls, "Le principat augusteen. Innovation ou permanence du passe?" Centro ricerche e documentazione suitantichita classica, 9, 1 9 7 7 - 8 , pp. 1 7 9 - 2 0 0 and E.S. Ramage, "Augustus' Treatment of Julius Caesar", Historia, 3 4 , 1985, pp. 2 2 3 - 2 4 5 . 1 2
1 3
1 4
7. Ant. XIV,
117
213-216
We also learn how little Roman decrees helped the Jews in their everyday relations with their Greek neighbors. Caesar's decisions in favor of the Jews were already disregarded in Asia only a few years after Caesar's death, in spite of the fact that they had been confirmed by senate decrees. In theory, a senate decree was in force until another decree was passed making it invalid (see RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 73 BCE, 11. 4 1 - 4 2 : "which (gift) has also been ratified by the senate and which has not afterwards by decree of the senate been made invalid"). Between theory and practice, however, there was apparently a large discrepancy, as we also learn from other documents quoted by Josephus (see documents nos. 17-21). As for Jewish rights, we learn from this letter that already in Caesar's time the Jews had permission to assemble in the city, to collect contributions of money and to hold common meals — information preserved in no other source. This letter also confirms Suetonius' testimony about Caesar's ban against collegia (Divus Julius, 42), adding the important information that the Jews in Rome were among those associations antiquitus constituia which were exempted from the ban (11. 12-16). In this case, however, they were not the "only" association to be exempted, as Barclay correctly observes. Also unique to this source is the information concerning Octavian's own time, namely, his permission granted to the Jews "to assemble and feast in accordance with their native customs and ordinances". This permission is noteworthy vis-a-vis his ban on other Gidoouc; ("religious societies" according to Marcus' translation) appearing on 11. 16-17 (also attested by Suetonius, Augustus, 32) and his restrictive measures concerning public banquets mentioned by Dio ("Of the public banquets, he abolished some altogether and limited the extravagance of others": LIV, 2, 3). A last aspect has to be noticed — the somewhat archaic nature of the title oxpaxr|yd<; imaxot;, which is found in Greek inscriptions from the second century B C E . The last case attested is that of C. Clodius Pulcher, consul in 92 BCE, who appears with the title axpaxriyot; \maxo<; as a recipient of honours at Cyrene (Ann.Ep. 1967, no. 532). A possible explanation for this curious archaic term in the letter quoted by Josephus may be the fact that it was not Octavian himself who wrote his letters in Greek. Suetonius writes that, although he had studied under Apollodorus of Pergamum and under the philosopher Areus, he was never able to speak Greek fluently 15
16
1 5
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 2 7 0 , note 2 8 . A m o n g the collegia exempted from Augustus' ban Rnadazzo mentions the collegium symphoniacorum (ludorum causa) (CIL VI, no. 4 4 1 6 ) ; that of the mensores machinarii frumenti publici (CIL VI, no. 85), the corpus mensorum et machinarium totius alvei Tiberis (CIL VI, no. 1872) and the collegium dendrophorum Romanorum (CIL VI, no. 2 9 6 9 1 ) . See S. Randazzo, "Senatus Consultum quo illicita collegia arcentur (DAI, 2 2 , 1, 1)", BIDR, Terza Serie, 3 3 - 3 4 , 1 9 9 1 - 1 9 9 2 , p. 6 1 . S e e bibliographical details in Pucci Ben Zeev, "Who Wrote a letter?", p. 2 4 2 , note 18 and RDGE, p. 3 8 2 . 1 6
118
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
nor to compose anything in it. When situations required him to write to Greeks, he would compose in Latin and have someone else translate: non tamen ut aut loqueretur expedite aut componere aliquid auderet; nam et si quid res exigeret, Latine formabat vertendumque alii dabat, as Suetonius puts it (Aug. 89, 1). The Greek translation of his letters was the work of anonymous translators. Sherk observes that it is difficult to establish whether they were Greeks who had mastered Latin, or Romans who had mastered Greek. Technical phrases would have been just as difficult to translate for the one group as for the other. 17
17
RDGE, pp. 2 0 4 - 7 . On the persons entrusted with the task of translating for the emperor, see F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337), London 1977, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 2 8 .
Ant. X I V , 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
217
218
(x. 9) Mexd 8e xov Tatou Gdvaxov MdpKoq 'Avxoovioq Kai no7iX,ioq AoXa^eXkaq vnaxoi ovxeq xr\v xe c u y K ^ r i x o v ovvfiyayov Kai xovq nap' TpKavoij ixpeaPeiq^iapayayovxec; 8ie^e%Gncav rcepi eov T^IODV Kai (|)iAi.av npbq avxoiiq eTiolTjaav Kai rcdvxa ovyXcopeiv a\)xoi<; f) ai3yKX.r|xo(; e\j/r|(|)ioaxo docov xvy%dveiv ePoi3X,ovxo. napaxlGeiiai 8e Kai xo 86y|ia, 6n(oq xrjv drcoSei^iv xcov Xeyo^ievcov eyyi3Gev excoaiv oi dvayivcooKovxeq xfjv 7cpay|iaxeiav. r\v 8e xoi0\)XOV. 2. AoA.aPeA.A.ai; P. AoA,oPeM.a<; F L A M V E . 3. J t a p ' om. F L A M V . nap' PE.
7. n a p a x i G e ( i a i F L A M . Subiungo Lat. n a p a t e 9 e i u . a i PV.
Translation After the death of Gaius, Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabella, the consuls, convened the senate and having introduced the envoys sent by Hyrcanus, discussed the requests they presented, and made a (treaty of) friendship with them. And the senate voted to grant them everything they sought. I herewith give the decree itself in order that the readers of this History may have before them a proof of these statements. It read as follows. Commentary Wishing to present to his readers the historical background of the document which he is going to quote, Josephus informs us that after the death of Caesar, Hyrcanus sent envoys to the Roman senate with the purpose of confirming the friendship established in Caesar's time. Two and a half years had elapsed from the first embassy sent by Hyrcanus to Rome requesting confirmation of "the friendship and alliance", and only a few months earlier Jewish envoys had arrived at Rome and are attested in Rome on February 9, as we learn from document no. 8, 11. 2 4 - 2 8 . Due to the length and complication of the 1
2
1
2
Ant. XIV, 185; see above, pp. 2 5 - 2 6 . S e e b e l o w , p. 129.
120
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
voyage at the time, it is not sound to imagine that we have two separate delegations. Possibly the same envoys who asked Caesar to take the initiative in the senate session, which took place on February 9, remained in Rome after the decree was passed in order to make sure that it should be registered. This did not happen, and Caesar's death on March 15 surely made the situation problematic for the Jews. That is why they applied to the consuls in office, in order to have the decree registered. It is, however, doubtful whether they were the same envoys sent by Hyrcanus in 47 BCE, who would have remained in Rome from 47 to 44 BCE, as Niese maintains. In this introduction given by Josephus to the document which follows, a great part of the information found in it may have been taken from the senate decree itself, and precisely from that part which preceded the prescript and which is not quoted by Josephus. In many senatus consulta preserved by inscriptions, we find at the beginning some phrases which inform the reader about the historical background of the document. They appear before the prescript, and usually contain the requests made by the foreign envoys to the senate and often the names of the envoys themselves. This is the case of the senatus consultum de agro Pergameno (RDGE no. 12, 11. 1-19). See also the decrees de rebus Phrygiae ordinandis (RDGE no. 13, 11. 1-4) and de Mytilenaeis (RDGE no. 26, col. b, 1. 14) and that issued by Augustus de pecuniis repetundis (RDGE no. 31, 11. 74-82). We may therefore suspect Josephus (or his source) of having shortened the text which he had in front of him. But this is by no means the only possible interpretation. Josephus could have given here his own interpretation of the facts alluded to in the decree. 3
The last phrase, "and the senate voted to grant them everything they sought", certainly did not appear in the original senate decree. No similar notions appear in any senate decree. This phrase, too, is certainly due to Josephus (or his source's) initiative. At the end we find, once again, Josephus' appeal to his readers to believe him, the same desire to be believed which we find also in Ant. XIV, 187-189: "Since many persons, out of enmity to us, refuse to believe... while against the decrees of the Romans nothing can be said — for they are kept in public places of the cities ... — from these same documents I will now cite the decrees..." and in XIV, 266-267:" I have refrained from citing them all... for I cannot suppose that anyone is so stupid that he will actually refuse to believe...".
3
"Bemerkungen ilber die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeol. B. XIII. XIV. XVI.", Hermes, 11, 1876, p. 4 7 4 . Against this possibility, see also Schiirer, Geschichte, p. 3 4 6 , w h o suggests that the Jewish e n v o y s had been sent to Rome towards the end of 4 5 , and Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 4 8 .
8. Ant. X I V , 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 4 4 B C E , 11 April
Senatus consultum issued after Caesar's death during the consulships of Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabella. It confirms the decisions made by Caesar concerning the Jews, which there had been no time to register in the Treasury.
Bibliography F. Ritschl, "Eine Berichtigung der republicanischen Consularfasten. Zugleich als Beitrag zur Geschichte der romisch-jiidischen Internationalen Beziehungen", RM, 28, 1873, p. 607; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 236-246; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in'Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, p. 180; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 101; E. Schurer, Geschichte des Judi'Schen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I, Leipzig 1901, p. 346; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, p. 169; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1' empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 141; O. Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, Leipzig 1914, pp. 74—75; Lily Ross Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: the Thirty-five .Urban and Rural Tribes, R o m e 1960, pp. 200-201, 211, 214, 244, 249, 257, 258; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 105; F. Millar, "The Aerarium and its Officials under the Empire", JRS, 54, 1964, p. 34; T.B. W i s e m a n , New Men in The Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14, Oxford 1971, pp. 230, 233, 264-5, 282; E. Mary Small w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 43, note 68; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 173; Joyce Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, London 1982, p. 65; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, "Marcus Antonius, Publius Dolabella and the Jews"', Athenaeum, 82, 1994, pp. 31^-0.
219
220
(x. 10) Aoyjia a\)yK?ir|xoD EK TOV xauaeioi) dvxiYeypaujLievov 8 K xcov 8e?ixcov xcov 8r||iooicov xcov xauiemiKcov, Ko'i'vxcp 'PouxiXicp Ko'i'vxcp Kopvr)?iicp xauiai<; Kaxd noXiv, 8e?ixcp 8euxepa Kripcojiaxi Ttpcoxcp. Tcpo xpicov eiScov 'AnpiMacov ev xco vaco xfj<; 'Ojiovoiac;. ypa(|)0|ievcp Tcapfjaav AcuKioq Kafoto'upvioc; Mevnvia rieiacov, Xepomo<; EoA,3.
Koiv-ccp Kopvr|A.iq) o m . Lat.: Ko'i'vxcp o m .
4-5.
Knpcoumi npcoxcp Viereck: iced EK XCOV rcpcoxcov npcoxn (Tcpcoxcp P: npcoxn x f j F L A M ) codd.: 8eXxcp...rcpcoxcpo m . Lat. ex Lat. edd. K a p r c o w u x ; codd. Mevnviai; P: M e v x n v i a FL: M e v x i v i a A M . Gronovius: Z e p o m v i o t ; codd. Mendelssohn: n c m i v u x ; , n a J i e i v i o q , Tlannivioq codd.
7. 7. 7. 7-8.
AM.
5
122
//. The Documents
221
Quoted
by
Josephus
7UKIO<; AEfxcovia Kot>ivxo<;, rdio<; Kaveivio^ Tr|pr|xiva PePtA,o<;, YlbnXxoc, TnSrixiot; ACUKIOV vibe, rioA,A,ia, AevKioq 'ATCOTJAKX; ACUKIOU vibe, Eepyia, OXdpicx; AevKiot) Aeuxovia, YlbnXwq YlXavxioq YlonXiov narceipia, MapKoc; TeXXwc, MdpKoa) MaiKia, AeuKioq 'Epo\)Kio<; AOVKIOD Exr|A,r|xiva, MdpKoc; Kot>ivxo<; MdpKot) vibq TloXAla YlXajKivoq, YlovnXioc, Zeppioq. I167cA,ioc; AotaxPeAAaq MdpKoq 'Avxcovux; imaxoi Xbyovc, £7coif|aavxo. 7cepi cov 86yuaxi ouyKA,r|xo'u rdio<; Kaiaap vnep 'IovSaicov eKpive Kai eiq xb xauieiov oi)K 8())0aaev dveve%0fjvai, rcepi xovxcov d p e a K e i fija.iv y e v e a 0 a i , coq Kai llo7iA,icp AoXa^eXXq Kai MdpKcp 'Avxcovicp xolq vnaxoiq e8o£ev, dveveyKeiv xe x a v x a eiq deXxovc, K a i npbc, xovq K a x d nbXiv x a u i a q OTCCOC; <j)povxiocooi K a i avxoi ev 5eA,xoi<; d v a 0 e i v a i dinxv%oiq. eyevexo npb rcevxe eiSoov OePpouaptcov ev xq> vacp xf\q '0|xovoia<;. oi 5e 7cpeaPet)ovxec; nap' TpKavou xo\) dp%iepeco<; fjaav oijxor A-uoi|iaxo<; riavoaviou, 'AAe^avSpoq 0 e o 5copot>, ndxpoKAoc; Xaipeou, 'Icovd0Ti<; 'Ovetou
10
15
-
222
8. Gronovius: Ne|a.covia codd. 8. K a v i v i o q F L A M . 9. TnAt|7tva P. Tripixiva M. 9. P e p a i o t ; F L A M . 9. Tixioq comi. Mendelssohn. T i 5 r | T i o < ; LM. 9 - 1 0 . AeuKioi) m o q i l o M A a o m . P A M . 10. 'AnovAavoq A M ; 'A7trcoA.r|io<; coni. Mendelssohn. 11. OA.ot>Pioq P. 11. Neixcova P. veuxovta F L A M . 12. n a m p i a L A M . 12. r e M a o q c o n i . Niese. aoeXXioq A M . aaaeXXioq FL. 'Ak\)A.io<; comi. Gronovius. 13. ZepouKioq P. 'PaioKioq Mendelssohn. 14. ETnA.rritva P. TY|A,rvuva FLA. Tn,X.'i"civa M. 15. F k m J u a F A M . 15. nA,dYKivoqP. nA,dyiciA,o<; A M . rRaKiAAoq FL. 15. Zepux; A M . Xepyioq aut ZT|axioq coni. Mendelssohn. 15. ante UonXwq excidisse rcepi cov putat Mendelssohn. 16. AoA,apeM.a A. boXkafieXka P. 5oA,oPeM.a A F L M . 20. u o i P . 24. e y e v e t o . quod decretum est Lat. 26. n a p ' F L A M . 28. Icovd9r|<; L A M Lat. 'Icodvvrv; PF. 28. 'Ovoiov P. ' O v I o d F L A M .
20
25
8. Ant. XIV,
219-222
123
Translation Decree of the senate, copied from the Treasury, from the public tablets of the quaestors, Quintus Rutilius and Quintus Cornelius being quaestors of the city, second tablet, first column. Three days before the Ides of April, in the temple of Concord, there being present at the writing Lucius Calpurnius Piso of the Menenian tribe, Servius Sulpicius Quintus of the Lemonian tribe, Gaius Caninius Rebilus of the Teretine tribe, Publius Tedetius, son of Lucius, of the Pollian tribe, and Lucius Apulius, son of Lucius, of the Sergian tribe, Flavius, son of Lucius, of the Lemonian tribe, Publius Plautius, son of Publius, of the Papirian tribe, Marcus Gellius, son of Marcus, of the Maecian tribe, Lucius Erucius, son of Lucius, of the Steletinian tribe, Marcus Quintus Plancinus, son of Marcus, of the Pollian tribe, Publius Serrius. Publius Dolabella and Marcus Antonius, the consuls, made speeches. As for the decision rendered by Gaius Caesar, with the concurrence of the senate, concerning the Jews, which there was not time to have registered in the Treasury, this matter we wish to be disposed of as the consuls Publius Dolabella and Marcus Antonius have decided, and that these decisions be recorded in tablets and brought to the quaestors of the city, and that they take care to have them inscribed on two-leaved tablets. They were dated the fifth day before the Ides of February in the temple of Concord. The envoys from the high priest Hyrcanus were the following: Lysimachus, son of Pausanias, Alexander, son of Theodorus, Patroclus, son of Chaireas, Jonathan, son of Onias.
Commentary 1. Aoyixa o"vyKA,f|TO\) is the official translation of the Latin senatus consultum. See RDGE, p. 373. 1-2. The words £K TOX> xauieiou avxiyeypauiievov make it clear that this is not the original text of the document, but a copy. See below, p. 130. 2. £ K xcov 5eX.TC0v. In the aerarium, the wooden tablets were given a file number for identification and were bound together with others into a codex. See below, pp. 130-131. 3-4. Ko'ivTtp 'PouTtAAcp Koivtcp KopvnAlcp xauiai<; icaia noXiv. This is the only pair of urban quaestors known under Caesar. Badian identifies Quintus Cornelius with the scriba of Sulla to whom Cicero refers when he mentions a man who in ilia dictatura [Sulla's] scriba fuerat, in hac [Caesar's] fuit quaestor urbanus (Off. 2, 29). The same Quintus Cornelius may also probably be identified with the pontifex minor who in turn should be identified with the teacher and friend of C. Trebatus Testa and with a friend of P. Sestius. Badian suggests that "Sulla took over the decuriae of civil servants as he found them... in order to ensure the functioning of the administration
124
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
while he carried out his reforms, which in any case included a revolutionary reorganization of the Senate, with the adlection of over three hundred new members. Among the scribae he found Q. Cornelius, who owed the office to L. Scipio Asiagenus ... and Sulla found a loyal and experienced scriba. It was quite possibly also Sulla ... who made him a pontifex minor, in the college, we find him about 70, as the senior pontifex minor.... Membership of the college no doubt brought Cornelius his contact with C. Caesar, elected to the college in 74/3. He had plenty of time to cultivate that connection.... We later find him as the revered teacher of C. Trebatius Testa ... and (if the identification we have suggested is correct) in touch with the family of his old patron, L. Scipio and thus P. Sestius, who had married into it, and Sestius' friend Cicero. He was obviously a man of skill and tact, and Cicero's outburst against his final reward of a quaestorship (we do not know whether Caesar personally picked him for the most honourable post of the urban quaestorship, but in the final months of his dictatorship such personal intervention is not unlikely) is clearly due to the pathological hatred for Caesar and his work that Cicero developed.... In any case, Q. Cornelius is a splendid example of the social mobility studied by Purcell, as achieved, particularly, by a gifted individual in a generation of crisis and transformation" (E. Badian, "The scribae of the Roman Republic", Klio, 71, 1989, pp. 586-589). 4 - 5 . The mansucripts give Kai EK xcov Ttpcoxcov Ttpcoxrj (see Niese's edition), which makes no sense. Viereck's suggestion of reading Knpcouaxi npcoxcp (KripcoLia = Lat. cera, "column" or "page") (Sermo graecus, p. 101) is today generally accepted (see Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 565 and Sherk, RDGE, p. 10). Similarly we find 8e?ixcp 7tpc6xrj, Knpcouaxi x e a o a p e o K a i S e K a x c p in RDGE, no. 23, 73 BCE, 1. 59. On the meaning of this expression, see Sherk's observation in RGE, p. 87, note 12. The whole sentence does not belong to the decree proper. It constitutes a notation added by the scriba who copied the decree (see below, p. 130). Similar notations added later appear in other Roman decrees preserved by Greek epigraphical texts, such as the senatus consultum de Asclepiade (RDGE no. 22, 78 BCE, 11. 1-3) and the senatus consultm de Aphrodisiensibus (RDGE no. 29, 35 BCE, 11. 1-3. See the different restoration of missing words by Reynolds, Aphr. no. 8, 11. 1-3. Reynolds suggests translating: "[In the] consulship [of C. Calvisius C.f. and L. Marcius] L.f.; from the record of decrees referred to the senate, file [?one, page four], five, six, seven, eight, nine; and in the quaestorian files of the year when M. Marti-[and?] were urban [quaestors], file one". As for the date, Reynolds suggests 39 BCE instead o f 35 BCE (see p. 64). 5. 7up6 xpicov ei8cov 'A7tpiM,icov. According to Mendelssohn, before these words the original decree probably read: [n67cA,io<;... AoA-oPeATiac; MapKOc; Avxcovioc;... i m a x o i xfj auyKXfjxcp o v v E p o v t e u a a v x o ] nob [rpepcov] xpicov ... (Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 245). As for the date, it is reproduced literally. Sherk observes that it is probably the most striking of the Latinisms
8. Ant. XIV,
219-222
125
to appear in these documents (RDGE, p. 1 4 ) . Three days before the Ides of April means April 1 1 . This is probably the date of the senate meeting which confirmed Caesar's decisions, and not, as Marcus suggests, that of the registration of the senatus consultum enacted before Caesar's death (Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 6 5 , note b). 5 - 6 . The temple of Concord was the most frequently used place after the Capitol, for the sessions intra pomerium of the senate in the years following 6 3 BCE. It is mentioned in a senatus consultum from Panamara in Caria (RDGE no. 2 7 , 3 9 BCE, 11. 4 - 5 ) , and by literary sources such as Cicero, Sallustius, Plutarchus and Dio (see bibliographical details in Marianne Bonnefond-Coudry, Le senat de la republique romaine, Rome 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 9 - 4 5 ) . Other places utilized for the sessions of the senate were the Curia and the temple of the Castors. The temple of Fides, the atrium Libertatis, the temple of Jupiter Stator, the temple of Honos and Virtus, the Palatine and the temple of Tellus were also occasionally used. See R.D. Weigel, "Meetings of the Roman Senate on the Capitoline", AC, 5 5 , 1 9 8 6 , pp. 3 3 3 - 3 4 0 and Bonnefond-Coudry, Le senat, pp. 2 5 - 1 3 6 . 6 . ypa(|)0|i.evcp 7tapfjaav is a standard expression found in the extant senatus consulta preserved in Greek inscriptions, and actually the one most often used to translate the Latin scribendo adfuerunt. It appears in the senatus consultum de Thisbensibus (RDGE no. 2 , 1 7 0 BCE, 11. 3 ^ 1 , 1 4 - 1 5 ) ; in the epistula L. Cornelii Sullae cum senatus consulto de Thasiis (RDGE no. 2 0 A, 8 0 BCE, 1. 5 ) ; in the senatus consultum de Asclepiade (no. 2 2 , 7 8 BC, 1. 4 ) ; in the epistulae et senatus consulta de Mytilenaeis (RDGE no. 2 6 , written in the age of Caesar, col. b, 1. 3 9 ) ; and in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus (RDGE no. 2 9 , 3 5 BCE, 1. 4 ) . We also find the genitive ypa(|)ou.£vo\) 7 r a p f j a a v (see Sherk, RDGE, p. 1 4 ) . 6 - 7 . Aot>Kio<; KaA.rco'upvioi; Mevr|via lieiocov. He may be identified with the L. Calpurnius L.f.L.n.Piso Caesoninus who was consul in 5 8 BCE. See Taylor, The Voting Districts, p. 2 0 0 ; E. Badian, "Broughton, Supplement to The Magistrates of the Roman Republic", Gnomon, 3 3 , 1 9 6 1 , p. 4 9 6 ; Broughton, MRR, III, p. 4 7 . 7 - 8 . Eepomoc; SoXniKioc; Aejicovia Komvxoc;. The reconstruction of the name of this senator is rather problematic. Manuscripts give Zepomvux; (reading accepted by Niese), while Gronovius corrects it to Xepomoc;; EOAJUKIOC; is conjectured by Mendelessohn ("Senati Consulta", p. 2 4 1 ) , while the reading in P is na7r.ei.vux;, and n a 7 u u i v i o < ; in A and M. As for the tribe, manuscripts give Neficovia, which Gronovius corrects to Ae|icovia. The reading given by Marcus is therefore highly conjectural. Badian identifies him with P. Servilius P.f.C.n.Isauricus, consul in 4 8 and 4 1 BCE (E. Badian, "Notes on Roman Senators of the Republic", Historia, 1 2 , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 1 4 0 - 1 ) while Taylor and Broughton suggest seeing in this senator the Ser. Sulpicius
126
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Q.f. Rufus, Lem., consul in 51 BCE, mentioned also by Cicero (Phil. 9, 15) (Taylor, Voting Districts, p. 257; Broughton, MRR, III, p. 203). 8-9. rdio<; Kaveivioq TnpnTiva 'Pefhtax;. Against the reading 'PEpHAaoc; suggested by Gronovius, see Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 242. He may have been the C. Caninius C.f.C.n.Rebilus, born by 84 BCE, legatus of Caesar in 52 and elected among the consules suffecti on December 31 of the year 45, at the seventh hour, when Fabius Maximus died suddenly ( C i c , Fam. VII, 30, 1). See F. Munzer, "C. Caninius Rebilus C.f.C.n.", RE, I, 6, 1899, no. 9, coll. 1478-9. It seems that he was a senator: see Broughton, MRR, II, p. 305; Taylor, Voting Districts, p. 201 and G.V. Sumner, "The Lex Annalis under Caesar (Continued)", Phoenix, 25, 1971, p. 357. He may possibly be the senator Rebilus, supporter of Octavian, who was captured and released by Sextus Pompey. In any case, he should be distinguished from the C. Caninius Re[bil]us who founded Cephaloedium in Sicily (Broughton, MRR, III, p. 49). 9 - 1 0 . n67rA,ioq Tn8r|Tio<; AEDKIOU vioq rioX.A,ia. Munzer rejects Cichorius' suggestion to emend the name to M. Tedetius M. f. Pol(lia tribu) (F. Munzer, "Tedetius", RE, II, 9, 1934, col. 106). Broughton believes he may have been a praetorius, since he follows a consular in Josephus' list (MRR, II, p. 497). See Taylor, The Voting Districts, p. 258, and Wiseman, New Men, pp. 2 6 4 - 5 . 10-11. Aet)Kio<; 'AnovXioq AeuKiou vioq Eepyia is mentioned only here. See Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 242; MRR, II, p. 488 and Taylor, The Voting Districts, p. 192 (Praetorius?). 11. OA,dfho<; AevKiou Aqicovia. The name of the tribe is Ne|ia>va in the Codex Parisinus and N£|icovia in FLAM, as in the case of the witness mentioned on 11. 7 - 8 . He may perhaps be identified with the L. Flavius tribunus populi in 60 BCE and praetor in 58 BCE (F. Munzer, "L. Flavius", RE, I, 12, 1909, no. 17, col. 2528), as suggested by Broughton (MRR, II, p. 491) and by Taylor (Voting Districts, p. 214). C. Flavius was also the name of a senator who was put to death along with Cannutius after the capture of Perugia in 40 BCE (Broughton, MRR, III, p. 92). 11-12. YlonXioq YYXamxoq no7tA,iou ricmeipio:. Because of the rarity of the name of the gens, Mendelssohn ("Senati Consulta", p. 243) and Munzer (F. Munzer, "P. Plautius Hypsaeus", RE, I, 4 1 , 1951, no. 23, coll. 16-18) have identified him with P. Plautius Hypsaeus, quaestor between 66 and 63, praetor by 55 and candidate for the consulship of 52 (MRR, II, p. 216, 494), an identification also accepted by Taylor (Voting Districts, p. 244). 12-13. MdpKOc; TzXXxoq MdpKou MaiKicx. We find 'AceXXioq in AM and ZaceXXioq in FL. Niese gives ZeXXioq. He may be identified with M. Gellius, a senator of slave origin, one of those who had probably been admitted into the senate by Caesar's permission without taking into consideration their origins (see F. Munzer, "M. Gellius", RE, I, 13, 1910, no. 7, col. 1000). That he was senator in 44 BCE is also stated by Plutarch and by Macrobius
8. Ant. XIV,
219-222
127
(Plutarch, Cic. 27, 2; Macrobius, Sat. II, 3, 10-11. See Broughton, MRR, II, p. 491 and III, p. 99). The notice in Plutarch indicates that he was a senator of low birth (Wiseman, New Men, p. 233). 13-14. A£t)Kio<; EpovKioc; AOUKIOU X/cr|^r|Tiva. This is the third case in which we find a witness for whom we do not have other sources. See F. Munzer, "L. Erucius", RE, I, 11, 1907, no. 3, col. 552; MRR, II, p. 490; Taylor, The Voting Districts, no. 9, p. 211 (Quaestorius?), and Wiseman, New Men, p. 230. Wiseman suggests that he could possibly have been related to C. Erucius, prosecutor in two cases concerning Umbrians. 14-15. MdpKoc; Komvxoc; MdpKou moq rioMAa nJiayKivoc;. We find rTAdvKivoi; in P, nA,dyKiA,oc; in AM, and UXdKiXkoq in FL. As for the tribe, the manuscripts vary between rioAAia and IloTcAia (FAM). Badian observes that we cannot be certain of the exact form (except that it was probably not an easy one like "Plancinus") and identifies him with the senator MdpKOc; ITaAAaKeivoq, of the TlonXiXia tribe, who appears as one of the witnesses in the senatus consultum de Panamara (RDGE no. 27, 39 BCE, 1. 11) (E. Badian, "Broughton, Supplement" (supra, commentary to 11. 6-7), p. 496; idem, "Notes on Roman Senators" (supra, commentary to 11. 7-8), pp. 137-8). Badian's suggestion is generally accepted. See Taylor, The Voting Districts, p. 249; Sherk, RDGE, p. 162; Wiseman, New Men, p. 282; Broughton, MRR, III, p. 180. 15. riotmAioc; Eeppioc;. The last witness, whom Josephus called Publius Serrius (or Eepioc;: AM), is included in the list of senators of 44 by Broughton, who suggests reading Sergius instead of Serrius, as already proposed by Mendelssohn. A senator Sergius was one of those proscribed, and then restored, by M. Antonius (MRR, II, p. 496, and III, p. 192). See F. Munzer, "P. Sergius", RE, II, 4, 1923, no. 20, col. 1692. 15-16. r i o T c ^ i o c ; AoA,aPeA,A,ac;. P. Cornelius P.f.n.Dolabella was chosen by Caesar with the intention that when he should depart for the Parthian war, Dolabella should become consul in his place, but Antony opposed the election. Dolabella, however, used the occasion of Caesar's assassination to secure the consent of both the Liberators and Antony to his succession. He probably joined Antony in promulgating in April a law for the settlement of veterans. In the reallotment of consular provinces in April he received Syria, and left Italy toward the end of October. See MRR, II, p. 317. On his family, see E. Badian, "The Dolabellae of the Republic", PBSR, 33, 1965, pp. 4 8 - 5 1 . 16. MapKoq 'AvTCOvioc;. M. Antonius M.f.M.n. was consul, together with Caesar, in the year 44 BCE. On the Ides of March, he fled, but later, with the backing of Lepidus and his troops, recovered himself, secured possession of Caesar's papers and his treasury, and used a period of accomodation with the Liberators and the help of Caesar's veterans to become master of the situation in Rome. Brutus and Cassius were driven out of the capital, while Antony himself gained command of Macedonia (and Dolabella of Syria) in April
128
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
and of Caesar's army there, and then early in June secured by plebiscite the Gallic provinces instead, while both he and Dolabella were confirmed in their commands for five years. Within this period after the Ides of March, several pieces of legislation were carried: a Lex Antonia to confirm Caesar's acts and another abolishing the dictatorship. In addition, there was a large amount of legislation for which Antony claimed the authority of Caesar's acta. See the sources cited by Broughton, MRR, II, pp. 315-6. He is mentioned in an inscription of Ephesus, which refers to honors for the deified Caesar (see MRR, III, p. 20). 16-17. Xoyovq £7rmr|cavT0 is a standard formula in Greek inscriptions preserving Roman senate decrees. See above, document no. 6, commentary to 1. 3. Dolabella and Antonius therefore took the initiative during this senate meeting concerning the Jews. This is also borne out by 11. 2 0 - 2 1 , where the senate states that it agrees to the opinion held by the consuls. 17-19. Perhaps the original phrase which appeared here was: 7 c e p i GOV 5 6 y | i a T i o\)yKA,r|TO'u, [6] eyevexo npo [fijiepoov] nevxe £i8[\)]cov Oefipoapleov ev TOO vacp Tfj<; 6(iovoia<; Kai e i c ; TO Tauieiov OTJK e < j ) 6 a a e v dvevexOfjvai, rdioq 'Io\)A,io<; [ratou vioq] Kaioap vnep 'IouSatcov eKpive, nepi TOUTCOV ... as Mendelssohn suggests with assurance: "non dubito quin emendatio in hunc modum perficienda sit": Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 240. 18-19. After the decree had been written up in the proper form, the relator had to deposit it in the state archives, the aerarium Saturni. This was a most important act, necessary for the validity of the decree. The technical phrase was in tabulas referre. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 8, note 16. The verb dvac|)epco is also used in a similar context in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus (Aphr. no. 8, 1. 1. On p. 65, Reynolds observes that the verb is also used by Plutarch for registration (Cat. Mi. 17), while Cicero commonly used refero (iudicium in tabulas relatum). From the date in which the senate session concerning the Jews took place, February 9 (see 11. 24-25), to Caesar's death on March 15, more than one month had passed, and the decree was not yet registered. We understand therefore that large intervals of time sometimes passed between a senate session, the redaction of the decree and its registration in the Treasury. 19-20. In the republican age, the expression d p e o K e t r\\iiv is usually found referring to the senate. xf\ <5X>yK\r\x d p e o K e i , translating the Latin senatui placere, is found in RDGE, nos. 26, col. c, 1. 3; 28 B, 1. 6. See also Sherk, RDGE, p. 15. The expression e|ioi ... d p e o K e i appears in Octavian's letter concerning Delian Jews (document no. 7, 1. 7), and, without euoi, in that written to the magistrates of Rhosos (RDGE no. 58, written between 42 and 30 BCE, 11. 44, 63, 70). 2 0 - 1 . cbq Kai ITo7cX,iep AoAaf3eA,?ia Kai MdpKcp AvTCOvicp TOU; \)7iaT0i<; e 8 o £ e v . The opinion of the consuls was apparently that expressed in their introductory speech mentioned on 11. 15-17.
8. Ant. XIV,
219-222
2 2 - 2 3 . The xauiac; KOTOC TC6A.IV was the quaestor
129
urbanus
(see Sherk,
RDGE, p. 1 6 ; see also RDGE nos. 2 2 , 1 . 2 6 ; 2 9 , 1. 3 ) . On the functions of the xauictc; in the Greek cities in Roman times, see A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7 , 2 , 1 9 8 0 , p. 6 7 9 . 2 3 - 2 4 . ev Se?iTOi<; dvaGeivai. Reynolds suggests that this "may be identical with what Cicero, writing of 1 4 6 B.C., called the librum in quo sunt senatus consulta Cn. Cornelio, L. Mummio coss (Att. XIII, 3 3 , 3 ) , cf. the much later sc de nundinis saltus Beguensis (CIL VIII, Suppl. 4 , no. 2 3 2 4 6 ) , where the copy is said to be descriptum et recognitum ex libro sententiarum in senatu dictarum Kani luni Nigri, C. Pomponi Camerini coss. It probably consisted of the originals as handed in by the relatores, from which the quaestors had copies transcribed on to their own tabulae" (Reynolds, Aphr., p. 6 5 ) . 2 4 - 2 5 . February 9 is the date of the senate decree which confirmed Caesar's decisions about the Jews, sections of which probably appear in documents nos. 4 and 6 . See Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 1 8 0 and above, pp. 77-8,
105.
2 5 . On the temple of Concord, see above, commentary to 11. 5 - 6 . 2 5 - 2 6 . oi 8e rcpeaPevovxec; nap TpKavoD. Smallwood may be correct in suggesting that these were the envoys sent to Rome when Caesar was still alive (The Jews, p. 4 3 , note 6 8 ) . Two of these envoys, Lysimachus son of Pausanias and Alexander son of Theodorus, were still in Rome in April of the same year, as we learn from the letter which Antony wrote to Hyrcanus three years later: "The envoys Lysimachus, son of Pausanias, Josephus, son of Mennaeus, and Alexander, son of Theodorus, who met me at Ephesus, have renewed the mission previously carried out in Rome..." (Ant. XIV, 3 0 7 ) . Most probably, the Jewish envoys did not return to Judaea after the meeting of the senate of February 9 , but waited in Rome for the official registration of the decree in the aerarium (see Roth, Rom und die Hasmonder, p. 7 5 ) . Since the registration was not carried out, and in the meantime Caesar was killed, the danger was probably felt — and it was actually a real danger — that Caesar's decisions confirmed by the senate on February 9 would have no legal value at all. Surely after March 1 5 the Romans had other matters to think about. That is probably why a new confirmation of the senate was requested, which Antony and Dolabella were ready to support. In such a delicate political moment as one month after Caesar's death, any loyal element may have been important and sought out. The consuls agreed and the senate confirmed. Gruen would possibly say that the confirmation cost Rome nothing except the wood of the tablet on which it was written (as he writes concerning other alliances established in the second century BCE by the Roman senate with minor powers, with whom there would be no question of or pretension to equality: E.S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, I, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1 9 8 4 , pp. 1 6 , 4 6 , 5 0 ) .
130
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
This is one of the few cases we have of a senatus contultum cited in an almost complete fashion. At the beginning, we find an opening clause which precedes the precript and does not belong to the decree proper. It is a notation which was written by the scriba who made the copy of the decree. It actually represents the final act in the process, as Sherk emphasizes. After the decree was written, it was deposited and registered in the state archives. This was the original copy, and it was never permissible to take it from the building. Whenever an offical copy was requested, the scriba would locate the original and make the copy. He would also indicate on the copy the location in the archives where the original could be found. At a later date, when the copy was published, this notation was sometimes engraved along with the decree. But it was not a part of the decree at all; it merely served to vouch for the authenticity and accuracy of the copy. Similarly, it has been noticed that in Greek decrees the dates were recorded in the prescripts of archival copies of decrees where they could be used for purposes of filing, but they were not recorded on stone until the middle of the fourth century BCE. 1
As for the registration, which was a legal necessity, at the aerarium the document was received by the urban quaestor, who saw to it that it was entered into the public records. The technical phrase was in tabulas publicas referred After the document had been received by the quaestors, it was handed over to the scriba quaestorius, who then took care of the details of registration. The decree was apparently surrendered to the quaestors in the form of wooden tablets. The wooden tablet was either alba, that is, a tablet covered with white paint or gypsum that could be written or painted on, or it was a tabula cerata covered with a layer of wax that was protected by a surrounding profile and could be written on with a stylus. A number of tablets of either kind could be hinged together and thus would form a diptych (two tablets), a triptych (three tablets) or, if there were even more of them, a polyptychon. A whole cluster of tablets was called a caudex or codex. Documents in a codex were referred to by identifying the tabula within the codex and the cera (page) of the tabula. Each annual batch in turn was marked off into monthly groups so that all the decrees registered in the space of one month would be bound together in the exact order of registration.
1
W . C . West, "The Public Archives in Fourth-Century Athens", GRBS, 30, 1989, pp. 5 2 9 - 5 4 3 . See also Octavian's letter to Plarasa-Aphrodisias in 38 B C E (Aphr. no. 6), where on 11. 2 9 - 3 0 w e find the word avTirce^covrpeva. Reynolds observes that "dvncoveia6ai usually means write in reply to (Polybius 8.18.11...) but Viereck argued that these are copies which 'corresponded to' the documents in the public archive at R o m e from which they were taken" (Aphr., p. 4 6 ) . See also SEG X X X V I I I , 1988, no. 1052. On the w h o l e procedure, see Sherk, RDGE, pp. 9 - 1 0 and E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, XVI, 1969, p. 1055. 2
8. Ant. XIV,
219-222
131
Our knowledge of these matters can be deduced largely from the decrees themselves. Despite the lack of full knowledge of the details of registration, storing, and possible changes in procedure in the course of time, we can be sure that the wooden tablets themselves were registered and stored in the aerarium. Wooden tablets were still in use in 68 CE. See for example the beginning of ILS no. 5947: Descriptum et recognitum ex codice ansato L. Helvi Agrippae procons., quern protulit Cn. Egnatius Fuscus scriba quaestorius, in quo scriptum fuit it, quod infra scriptum est... Wood tablets could not be expected to last; hence only a few examples of them have come down to us. The most important specimens are wax tablets found in the ancient gold mines of Transylvania and in Pompei. In this senate decree quoted by Josephus, the prescript opens with the date and the place ("three days before the Ides of April, in the temple of the Concord"), in the same order as they appear in the prescripts of the known Roman senatus consulta preserved by Greek inscriptions. Then the witnesses are mentioned, at the usual place in known senate decrees. There are eleven witnesses. If we look at the numbers of witnesses which appear in other senatus consulta, we find that in the second century BCE their number was rather small, two or three only. Two witnesses are found in RDGE nos. 2 (170 BCE), 7 (middle of the second century BCE) and 18 (81 BCE). Three is the number most frequently attested: RDGE nos. 4 (between 175 and 160 BCE); 5 (164 BCE); 9 (140 BCE); 10 (135 BCE); 22 (78 BCE); 23 (73 BCE); in no. 15 (112 BCE) we find three or four witnesses, and in no. 1 (189 BCE) four witnesses. In Caesar's age, on the contrary, ten or more witnesses were common. Eight or nine witnesses are found in RDGE no. 26, col. c, from Caesar's times; ten witnesses in RDGE no. 27, 39 BCE; and at least ten witnesses in RDGE no. 29, 35 B C E . The number which appears in Josephus therefore reflects the attested use toward the end of the Roman republic. 3
4
The entire prescript, including the opening clause, is in full accordance with the standard form of prescripts in decrees of the republican age. As for the theme, from the extant epigraphical examples of senatus consulta we know that the introductory clause assumes the form 7 c e p i cov... Xoyovq £ 7 t o i r | a a v x o , while the concluding clause, de ea re ita censuerunt, becomes 7 t e p i oikou xov 7r,pdY|iiaxo<; ouxcoc; £8oc;ev and serves to introduce the decree proper (ut = O7tco<;). Among the standard phrases which appear in the theme, we find the expression senatui placere, which is rendered by the Greek dpeoicetv xfj o u y K ? i r | x a ) . Our case is somehow different, since 5
3
S e e Sherk, RDGE, pp. 8 - 1 0 and especially p. 8, note 16. S e e also E. Posner, Archives in the Ancient World, Cambridge 1972, pp. 1 6 2 - 3 and A.K. B o w m a n , "The Vindolanda Writing Tablets and the Development of the Roman Book Form", ZPE, 18, 1975, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 5 2 . S e e Sherk, RDGE, p. 7, note 12. Sherk, RDGE, pp. 1 4 - 1 5 . 4
5
132
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
here the senatus consultum does not have to make new decisions, but simply confirms those made by Caesar before his death. In any case, much in the phraseology is in accord with the standard form of the theme. The consuls... Xoyovq £7coif|aavxo, and the senators declare that Tcepi xouxcov dpeaicei f)ulv yeveoGai, coc; K a i ... xoiq imdxoii; £5o^ev (11. 19-21). We do not find here the additional mark of approval, that is, the vote of the senate formally expressed, £8oc;ev. This however is not particularly significant, since, as Sherk shows, it is missing in many decrees preserved by extant inscriptions. As for the content, two subjects demand investigation: the historical identity of the Roman witnesses present at the writing of the decree, and the information itself concerning the later ratification of Caesar's decrees. All the witnesses were senators. Immediately after each meeting, a small committee was formed to put into final form any senatus consultum that may have been passed. The committee contained a chairman, i.e. the relator, as well as those members of the senate who had supported the matter. Of the eleven senators mentioned by Josephus, three appear in this text only, and we have no other source mentioning them: witnesses no. 4, Publius Tedetius, son of Lucius, of the Pollian tribe; no. 5, Lucius Apulius, son of Lucius, of the Sergian tribe; and no. 9, Lucius Erucius, son of Lucius, of the Steletinian tribe. It should be observed in this context that this is by no means an exceptional case. In the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus, too, eight among eighteen senators mentioned as witnesses are not historically identified. 6
7
8
The other witnesses mentioned in our document are better documented and allow a possible historical identification with magistrates of the Roman republic which are also known from other sources. Four among them are senators of low birth. In four cases, the names are preserved in the Greek manuscripts in a very corrupt way (witnesses nos. 2, 8, 10, l l ) . The last piece of information contained in Josephus' decree concerns the later registration of Caesar's acts about the Jews. Contemporary Roman sources show that the case of the Jews was not an isolated one. By decree of the senate, Antony and his colleague Dolabella were empowered to review, with the assistance of a commission, measures in Caesar's papers which he had planned but not published, and after May, a law promulgated by Antony, passed on June 2, nullified this measure by naming 9
10
1 1
6
Sherk, RDGE, p. 7. Sherk, RDGE, p. 7. Aphr. no. 8, 11. 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 2 1 . On 1. 11 a senator is mentioned w h o s e tribe's name was not previously known. S e e R.W. Bane, The Composition of the Roman Senate in 44 B.C., Ph.D. Univ. of Southern California, Los A n g e l e s 1971 (summary in DA„ 3 2 , 1971, 8 6 1 A - 8 6 2 A ) . S e e W i s e m a n , New Men, pp. 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 , 2 6 4 - 5 , 2 8 2 . For the possible meaning of this fact, see below, pp. 3 6 3 - 3 6 6 . 7
8
9
1 0
1 1
8. Ant. XIV,
219-222
133
the two consuls only as the commission. Within this period after the Ides of March several pieces of legislation were passed, of which the most important, from the Jewish point of view, was a Lex Antonia to confirm Caesar's acts. This law also added a third panel to the juries, one of centurions without census rating, while another permitted appeal by persons condemned in the quaestiones perpetuae de vi and de maiestate. In addition there was a large amount of legislation for which Antony claimed the authority of Caesar's acta: one to recall exiles, one to grant full Roman citizenship to all in Sicily, one to restore Deiotarus of Galatia to his full rights as king in Galatia and one to relieve the island of Crete of vectigalia and made it no longer a province after Brutus' governorship. Cicero gives firsthand information: deinde, quern ad modum tu scis (interfuisti enim), cum consules oporteret ex senatus consulto de actis Caesaris cognoscere, res ab Us in Kal.Iun. dilata est. accessit ad senatus consultum lex quae lata est a.d. HI Non.Iun., quae lex earum rerum quas Caesar 'statuisset, decrevisset, egisset' consulibus cognitionem dedit (Att. XVI, 16 c, 2). Toward this law, the sources display an extremely critical view. It appears that many circles in Rome did not approve of Caesar's acts, and their ratification by Antony was approved only "because special regard should be paid to peace and quiet" (Phil. 1, 16). Also the way in which the ratification was carried on was openly criticized by Cicero: "It is as contained in small note-books and memoranda, and papers, produced on his (Marcus Antonius') single authority, and not even produced, but only quoted, that the acts of Caesar are to be ratified" (Phil. 1, 16-17). Cicero's critical position (see also Phil. 2, 100, Phil. 5 , 1 0 and 6, 3) was apparently common to many Roman circles, as we learn from Appian and Dio. "When ... Antonius himself was charged with the duty of investigating the acts of Caesar's administration and carrying out all his behests, he no longer acted with moderation, but... made many erasures and many substitutions, inserting laws as well as other matters" (App., Bell.Civ. 3, 5. See also 2, 135 and 3, 22). Dio, too, insists on the abuses committed by Antonius: "When ... Antonius himself was charged with the duty of investigating the acts of Caesar's administration and carrying out all his behests, he no longer acted with moderation, but... made many erasures and many substitutions, inserting laws as well as other matters" (XLIV, 53, 2). Similar criticism appears in XLV, 23, 5-8: "You ratified all the grants made to various persons and all the laws laid down by Caesar, not because they were all excellent — far from it! — but because it was inadvisable to make any change in them... This man, appointed to examine into Caesar's acts, has abolished many of them and has substituted many others in the documents...". It therefore appears that the later ratification of Caesar's grants by Antony is not an invention by Josephus. Frederiksen 12
1 2
On Antony's acts from March 15 until the end of the year, see the sources cited by Broughton, MRR, II, pp. 3 1 6 , 3 3 2 .
134
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
maintains that the lex Antonia de actis Caesaris confirmandis could definitely have included some decisions whose final ratification was still wanting, like the senatus consultum on the Jews mentioned by Josephus. The examination of both technical details and content of this text allows us to suggest that it reflects a copy of an authentic Roman senatus consultum, actually not a copy but the copy of a copy. It was a general and well attested procedure that whenever a decree of the senate was passed in the interest of, or at the request of, a foreign community, a copy was usually sent to it (the dvTiYpa^ov) with a covering letter of a consul or praetor. These decrees therefore were not really official Roman publications, but copies, because the originals always remained in R o m e . In our case, the copy sent to the Jews was probably deposited in the archives in Jerusalem. But it is not this copy which Josephus quotes. The notation which appears at the beginning of the decree, on 11. 1-4, makes it clear that this which is quoted by Josephus is an additional copy, made later, most probably in response to a Jewish request. But how can we be sure that this senatus consultum is not a forgery? It is well known that there existed in Rome forged senatus consulta which were deposited in the aerarium. We learn it from Plutarch about Cato's times (Cat.min. 17, 3 ^ ) , and from Cicero for his own days (De lege agraria oratio secunda, 37; In M. Antonium oratio Philippica, V, 12 and XII, 12 and Epistolae ad Atticum, XV, 26, 1). Cicero was himself accused of having falsified the protocols of a session of the senate (De domo sua ad pontifices oratio, 50). Cicero in turn accuses both Caesar (Epistolae ad familiares, IX, 15, 4) and Antony of having deliberately forged senatus consulta (Phil. 5, 12; Ad Fam. XII, 1,1 and Ad Fam. XII, 29, 2 ) . One of Antony's interpolations could be the last of the four measures mentioned in the bronze tablet found at Heraclea. The drafts of the four measures were produced from among Caesar's papers and, although they still lacked final revision, were given force of law in June 44 by the Lex Antonia de actis Caesaris confirmandis. It has been suggested that the last of these measures, which is the confirmation in advance of amendments in the charter of Fundi in Campania, was interpolated by A n t o n y . Moehring considers the possibility that some 13
14
1 5
16
1 3
M.W. Frederiksen, "The Republican Municipal Laws: Errors and Drafts", JRS, 5 5 , 1965, p. 194. ' Sherk, RDGE, pp. 1 2 - 1 3 . The reasons which made possible these falsifications are dealt with by E. Gabba, "Cicerone e la falsificazione dei senato consulti", SCO, 10, 1961, pp. 9 1 - 9 3 , 9 5 . S e e also F. Millar, "The Aerarium and its Officials under the Empire", JRS, 5 4 , 1 9 6 4 , p. 34. In particular, on the possible reasons which would have prompted Antony to falsify Caesar's acts, see Bonnefond-Coudry, Le senat (supra, commentary to 11. 5 - 6 ) , p. 5 7 1 . See also U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp. 7 2 - 7 3 . F.E. Adcock, "Caesar's Dictatorship", CAH IX, 1952, p. 6 9 8 . 4
1 5
1 6
8. Ant. XIV,
135
219-222 17
of Josephus' documents, too, could possibly have been forgeries. In view of the accusations brought against Antony as responsible for having forged the acta of Caesar, our doubts concentrate especially on this document, which reports Antony's and Dolabella's legalization of Caesar's grants to the Jews. We may suspect, however, that those decrees were forged which concerned subjects of notable importance for the political life of Rome itself. Matters concerning provincials were surely much less important, and we may doubt if they deserved the effort to forge a document. Who among the political figures active in Rome at the time might have had the interest to run the risk? A parallel to what happens in the case of the Jews may be found in a group of documents concerning the community of Plarasa-Aphrodisias which appear in RDGE, no. 28, Epistula M. Antonii ad Plarasenses et Aphrodisienses et Senatus Consultum, 39-35 BCE. Sherk suggests that "the letter of Caesar was an actual letter written and sent by Caesar to the city while he was in Asia.... After his death it was one of the many acta that the triumvirs confirmed, but a copy of it had been sent long before to the city, where it was published and/or deposited in the local archives. When Marcus Antonius was later asked for the copies of all the official documents pertaining to the city, the emKpiua must have been the decree by which the acta Caesaris were confirmed by the triumvirs. The city already had a copy of Caesar's letter and would not have needed another. When the four documents arrived in Aphrodisias, the letter of Caesar would naturally have been added to the dossier. All were then published. After all, the letter of Caesar must have been the first document of the series that defined the status of the city in the Caesarian period, for Antonius' decree had only confirmed its provisions. And the senatus consultum had merely confirmed the measures of the triumvirs". 18
Should we think that both legalizations by Antony were forgeries? Hardly, also in view of the fact that both received further confirmation by later rulers, Augustus and Claudius in the case of the Jews (documents nos. 22, 29) and Tiberius in that of Plarasa-Aphrodisias. Tacitus (Ann. 3, 62) informs us that when the emperor Tiberius decided to examine the credentials of those Greek sanctuaries which claimed inviolability, he ordered all of them to send their charters and documents to Rome as proof of their claims. There appeared before him first the Ephesians, then the Magnesians, and Aphrodisienses posthac et Stratonicenses dictatoris Caesaris ob vetusta in partis merita et recens divi Augusti decretum adtulere, laudati quod Parthorum irruptionem nihil mutata in populum Romanum constantia pertulissent. This seems to
1 7
H.R. Moehring, "The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus", in: Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, III, ed. J. Neusner, Leiden 1975, pp. 132-133. RDGE, pp. 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 . See also pp. 1 9 4 - 5 . 1 8
136
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
mean that the Aphrodisians produced a decree of Caesar which they had received for service to his party. Cicero's accusations have to be understood and interpreted, it seems, in the context of his political struggle. A rather skeptical view on this point has already been expressed by Frederiksen: "Antony could have smuggled in half-finished proposals, or indeed his own. Cicero said so repeatedly, in vague and indignant plurals. Such charges are notoriously difficult to substantiate. It is indeed hard to know how much further Antony went than these ambiguous or trivial instances. But even if the Lex Antonia in June allowed Antony to revive a project of Caesar's, why not revise the drafting? In order, we are told, to convince the sceptics that these were Caesar's drafts. That would not have got him far; nor in such tralatician matters as colony laws and municipal affairs does that seem likely". We may also observe that our senatus consultum merely confirms Caesar's decrees and does not contain additional decisions. The Jewish rights had been bestowed upon the Jews when Caesar was still alive. There seems to be no reason to suspect a forgery. 19
20
1 9
S e e the bibliography quoted by Sherk, RDGE, p. 168. Frederiksen, "The Republican Municipal Laws", p. 194. For what he calls a "salutary scepticism", see the works of S y m e and of Frisch quoted by Frederiksen (p. 194, note 64). 2 0
Ant. X I V , 2 2 3 - 2 2 4 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
223
224
(X. 11)
"E7I£U\|/8 8e XOTJXCOV 'YpKCXVO^ XCOV 7ip£(7|38t)-
xcov eva Kai 7tp6<; AoA,aPeA,A,av xov xfjc; 'Aaiaq xoxe fryeuxWa, 7capaKaA,6)v anoXvoax xoix; 'Ioi)8aio\)c; xfjq oxpaxeia^ Kai xd 7idxpia xr-peiv avxolq £0rj, Kai Kaxd xcfOxa £fjv e m x p e T t e i v OTJ xv%eiv auxcp pa8ico<; eyevexo* A,aPcbv y a p 6 AoAxxPeAAa^ xd T t a p d xov TpKavcO ypdu|»iaxa, jiTiSe PcuA,e\)ad|j.evo(; e 7 t i a x e X , A,ei xolq Kaxd xqv 'Aaiav anaai, ypd\|/a<; Kai xfj 'E(()ecji(ov 7c6A,ei 7ipcoxe\)ot)cm xfjc; 'Aoiai; 7 c e p i xcov 'IoDSalcov. fi 8e e7cioxoX,fi xotixov 7 i e p i e i % e xov xpo7tov. 2. 4. 8. 8.
AoA.dPeA.A,av P. 8oA.oPeA.A.av F L A M E . axpaxiai; P A M . ypd\)/a<; om. V. K a i T f l F L A M V Lat. om. P.
Translation One of these envoys Hyrcanus sent also to Dolabella, who was then governor of Asia, requesting him to exempt the Jews from military service and permit them to maintain their native customs and live in accordance with them. And this request he readily obtained; for Dolabella, on receiving the letter from Hyrcanus, without even taking counsel, sent to all (the officials) in Asia, and wrote to Ephesus, the chief city of Asia, about the Jews. His letter read as follows.
Commentary As document no. 8, document no. 9, too, is preceded by an introduction provided by Josephus (or by his source), the purpose of which was probably to provide a kind of literary continuum between the documents. Introductions are not always given by Josephus to his documents. From document no. 11 on, through no. 21, all the other texts are quoted one after the other, no comment appearing between them. One may wonder whether Josephus (or his source) may have begun to reproduce the documents with the intention of providing historical backgrounds, and have successively given
138
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
up the project, arriving at the decision just to make the texts speak for themselves. We also notice that in this case, too, as in the preceding one, the content of the introduction does not include new information, but limits itself to repeating the same items which appear in the document itself: the content of the requests brought by the envoys of Hyrcanus to Dolaballa, the fact that the envoy sent to Dolabella is one of those who had been sent by Hyrcanus to Rome mentioned in document no. 8, 11. 2 5 - 2 8 , and that copies of this letter were to be sent by Dolabella "to all (the officials) in Asia". The only piece of information which does not appear in the document cited afterwards relates to the fact that Dolabella decided about the requests of Hyrcanus by himself "without even taking counsel". Whether Josephus (or his source) had an additional independent source, however, is doubtful. The detail may well come from the document itself, where, unlike what happens in other documents (for example, nos. 10, 16, 22), we do not find mention of an advisory board of Dolabella. This raises the question whether this constitutes an exception, since most of the times, consuls and supreme commanders arrived at a decision with the assistance of their advisory boards. But it appears that the case of Dolabella, too, is also attested. Other cases appear in the epigraphical sources in which a Roman commander, or consul, made a decision independent of any advisory board. See for example Caesar's decisions concerning Smyrna after Pharsalus (RDGE no. 54 = RGE no. 80 A, 1. 30: concerning this [matter I have decided as follows:..."). That Josephus (or his source) utilized no additional source may also be deduced from the fact that Dolabella is called "governor of Asia", which is not exact, since Dolabella had in fact been appointed governor of Syria only. 1
2
We therefore get the impression that all the material of this introduction was taken from the document itself, which is also the case with Josephus' introduction to document no. I . 3
1
See for example RDGE nos. 43 = RGE no. 5 0 , 115 B C E (?); 4 9 = RGE no. 6 2 B, 84 BCE; 2 3 = RGE no. 7 0 , 73 BCE. 2 MRR, II, p. 3 1 7 . S e e B. N i e s e , "Bemerkungen iiber die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeol. B. XIII. XIV. XVI.", Hermes, 11, 1876, p. 4 7 4 . 3
9. Ant. X I V , 2 2 5 - 2 2 7 4 3 B C E , January 2 4
Letter sent by the Roman proconsul of Syria P. Cornelius P.f. n. Dolabella to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus. It confers upon the Jews the right of being exempted from military service and permission to follow their native customs, to come together for sacred and holy rites in accordance with their law, and to make offerings for their sacrifices. * Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 4 7 - 2 5 2 ; H. Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden unter der Romerherrschaft", MGWJ, 30, 1886, p. 337, note 1; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 107; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 146; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, pp. 168, 2 0 2 , 207; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 97; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, Princeton 1950, p. 1273, note 48; R. S y m e , "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature", Historia, 7, 1958 = Roman Papers, I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, p. 369; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 105; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 7 7 - 7 8 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 128; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 4 1 6 ; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1979, pp. 2 2 0 , 2 2 4 - 5 ; A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 7 0 6 , note 182; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 180; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 248; A . M . Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 1291; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 117; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, pp. 117, 121; A.M. Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 678; G. Stemberger, "Die Juden im Romischen Reich: Unterdriickung und Privilegierung einer Minderheit", Christlicher Antijudaismus und Judischer Antipaganismus: Ihre Motive und Hintergriinde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, ed. H. Frohnhofen, Hamburg 1990, p. 9; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1 9 9 1 , p. 17; L. Troiani, "The no'kx.xzia of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, p. 18; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, pp. 2 6 8 , 270.
225
(x.
1 2 ) 'Etci
Tcpmdvetoc;
vaicovoc; Tcpoxepa.
'ApT£|ia>vo<;
AoXafieXkac,
\ir\vbc,
amoKpdicop
Ar|E$E-
2.
jipoxepa P.rcpcoTrjF L A M die prima Lat.
3.
d p x o u a i PovA.fi Kai F. (JouXfj Kai d p x o u a i Kai L A M Lat.
140
//. The Documents
226
227
Quoted by
Josephus
ctcov dp%o\)Gi ftouXfj 8r||icp %aipeiv. 'AA,e£av8po<; 0eo8c6pov, TcpeaPemric; TpKavou xox> AA,e^dv5po\) viov apxiepecoq Kai e0vdpxou xcov 'IouSaicov, eve(J)dvioe urn rcepi xou |if| 8t>vao0ai oxpaxe\jeo0ai xoix; noXixaq amov 8id xo (if|xe 0TcA,a Paoxd^eiv 5t>vaa0ai ur|xe oSoircopelv atixoix; ev xaiq fniepaic; xcov oappdxcov, \ir\xe xpotjxov xcov rcaxpicov Kai
5
10
Ka0cb<; K a i o i rcpo euoij riyei-idvei;, 5i8co(xi xf]v d a x p a x e i a v K a i cTDyxcopco xP^\^ ^G Tcaxpioic; e0ia|iiotc;, i e p c o v eveKa K a i d y i c o v
TO
Ka0cb(; a i j x o i s ; vojxi^iov, K a i xcov rcpoc; xdc; Qvoiac, d(()aipeu.dxcov, tifiac; x e (3ot)?iO[iai xaijxa y p d \ ) / a i K a x d noXeic,.
15
13. dyicov F L A M V . dyioi<; P.
Translation In the presidency of Artemon, on the first day of the month of Lenaeon, Dolabella, Imperator, to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, greeting. Alexander, son of Theodorus, the envoy of Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, has explained to me that his fellow-citizens cannot undertake military service because they may not bear arms or march on the days of the Sabbath; nor can they obtain the native foods to which they are accustomed. I, therefore, like the governors before me, grant them exemption from military service and allow them to follow their native customs and to come together for sacred and holy rites in accordance with their law, and to make offerings for their sacrifices; and it is my wish that you write these instructions to the various cities. 1
1
"co-religionists": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 6 9 .
Commentary 1. According to Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 568), the first day of the month of Lenaeon corresponds to January 24. On the months at Ephesus, see A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, Miinchen 1972, pp. 122-124. The year is indicated by the name, otherwise unattested, of the Ttptixavic; of the Greek council. The eponymous magistrate, i.e. the magistrate whose name designated the year, went under a variety of titles in the cities of Asia Minor. The eponymous magistrate was the npvxaviq at Pergamum, Ephesus and Colophon (Notium), while he was the x>nap%oq at Cyzicus and the oxe(|)avo(|)6po<; at the oldest cities of Asia especially. See A.D. Macro, "The
9. Ant. XIV,
225-227
141
Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 678 and SEG XLI, 1991, nos. 930-932. The fact that the date is given according to the Greek calendar suggests that it was not written by Dolabella himself, who would in all probability have used the Roman and not the Greek calendar (as it happens, for example, in document no. 8), but was added later, probably at Ephesus, as the mention of the npvxaviq suggests, when the document was presumably deposited in the local public archives. See Juster, Les Juifs, p. 146, note 3. 2. AoA.aPeA,A,a<;ai)TOKpdxcop. Syme observes that "it might even be doubted whether P. Dolabella had by this time recorded an imperatorial salutation. In his journey from Rome to the East, Dolabella, it is true, had had a brush with insurgent republicans in Macedonia, and he had dispossessed Trebonius, the proconsul of Asia. But those incipient stages of civil war should have provided no occasion or excuse for him to be acclaimed as "imperator". In the civil wars, Caesarian and Triumviral, generals of all parties freely added 'imp.' to their names. Not all of them could assert a right to legal authority; and it is fair to suppose that 'imp.' could derive not so much from a victory as from an act of usurpation, that it could represent not merely a claim to a triumph one day but a title of authority and command" (Syme, "Imperator Caesar", p. 369). See also R. Combes, Imperator: Recherches sur I'emploi et la signification du titre d' imperator dans la Rome republicaine, Paris, 1966 (non vidi). 2 - 3 . 'E(|)eoicov dp%ouoi (toiAfj 8fjucp %aip£iv. This is the common form of the "salutation" found in Roman official correspondence. It follows the example of the Hellenistic Greek letters, which begin with the name of the sender in nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative, and finally the word of greeting. See RDGE, pp. 189-190. 3 - 4 . AXz^avhpoc, 0eo5c6pou, npec^evxr\q. He is the same envoy who had been sent by Hyrcanus to Rome less than one year before. We find him in Rome in April 44, but it is not impossible that he was there already in February (see above, document no. 8, 11. 27-28). He had been sent to Dolabella, who was then consul, and to Antonius, in order to obtain the confirmation by the senate of Caesar's decisions concerning the Jews which there was no time to register in the Treasury, as we learn from document no. 8,11. 2 7 - 2 8 . Alexander and Dolabella therefore already knew each other, and this may be the reason why Hyrcanus chose him. Since the grants bestowed by Caesar upon the Jews were well known to Dolabella, Hyrcanus' requests on behalf of the Jews of Ephesos had a high probability of being granted. 4 - 5 . TpKavofJ... dpxiepecoc; Kai eGvap^ou On the titles given to Hyrcanus and their political meaning, see A. Momigliano, "Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano", ASNP, ser. I, 3, 1934, repr. Amsterdam 1967, pp. 13-14 = 195-6; Schurer, The History, p.
142
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
271 and Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 , 135-6. See also above, document no. 1, commentary to 11. 2 2 - 2 8 . 5 - 6 . The same verb is often used in Roman documents when the foreign envoys made their request clear to the Roman senate. See for example the senatus consultum de collegiis artificum Bacchiorum: RDGE no. 15,11. 2 9 - 3 1 : oi 7i[peaPemai . . . ] . . . evecjxxviaav rfj avyKAriTcp ... and some documents from Aphrodisias published by Reynolds, Aphr. no. 2, b, col. 1,1. 3: dvavKaiov 8e eaxiv ...7rpea[3£\)Td(;xoix;ev^avio-Ovxaq ...no. 9 , 1 1 . 1 2 - 1 3 : 7 i p e a P e m a i ... eiq 'Pcou/nv Ttpoq xfiv GIJYKATITOV Tcapayevcovxai TOI<; dpxoijaiv... ev^aviacoaiv O7tco^ ... no. 12,11. 4 - 5 : EoAxov ... TtpeaPevxfiq... eve(()dvioev jioi... 7. The translations offered for this term are "countrymen" by Hadas (transl. to Ar., p. 113) and "co-religionists" by Marcus, who observes that "the use of noXlxai to denote the co-religionists in Egypt of the Jews of Palestine is one o f several instances which show how far it was from the Hellenistic mind, whether pagan or Jewish, to distinguish between race and nationality or between nationality and religion" (Loeb ed., VII, p. 25, note d). Other translations given to the word are "fellow-citizens" by Colson in his translation of Philo's Leg. 211 and 265 (Loeb ed., X, pp. 109, 135) and "co-nationalists" (Troiani, "The rcoAiTeia of Israel", p. 18). This use of the word noXix^q in a Jewish context is amply attested by contemporary sources. A number of passages o f the Septuagint (from Genesis, Jeremiah and Proverbs) are quoted by Troiani, in which the term noXixr\q translates the Hebrew i n ("fellow Israelite"). The term has the same meaning in the letter written by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to the high priest Eleazar, quoted in Ar. 36 and by Josephus in Ant. XII, 46: "And we t o o , since we have assumed the realm, meet all men in a very human manner but your KoAixai to a special degree". The author of II Mace. 5:23, t o o , speaks o f hostile behaviors toward his fellow Jews, the TcoHxai. The same meaning is attested down to the first century CE. The men instructed by Moses are defined by Josephus as "citizens" (Ant. I, 21), and according to Philo, the young son o f Germanicus rebukes King Agrippa for the arrogance "of your fine and good 7coA,txai" (Leg. 265). We also have an apologetic passage in which Philo explains that the Jews welcome foreigners who show respect and consideration for them no less than their own TcoAixai (Leg. 211), and the expression is also used by Paul of Tarsus. Troiani quotes "a felicitous expression of Martin Goodman: 'Like the Romans and different from the Greeks, the Jews accepted the notion that their 7uoX,ixeia was not fixed to any particular locality'" (M. Goodman, "Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century", The Jews Among Pagan and Christians in the Roman Empire, eds. J. Lieu, J. North, T. Rajak, London 1992, p. 61). Troiani concludes that "the 7coAiteia went beyond the rights o f citizenship in the single city. It must have also indicated the bond
9. Ant. XIV,
225-227
143
that united the Jews in the Greek diaspora, who were therefore rcoAIxai" (Troiani, "The rcoAixeia of Israel", pp. 18, 19, 21). The same seems attested also in non-Jewish contexts. The term rcoATxai which appears in OGIS II, no. 592 is translated "fellow-citizens" ("The politeuma of the Caunians t o . . . their fellow-citizens") by Luderitz, who observes: "The plural cmxcov must refer to the communities of citizens from Caunus;... so they cannot refer to the respective politeumata as institutions — the deceased were 'their fellow-citizens' (of the other citizens living in Sidon and belonging to the politeuma) and not 'its citizens' (of the politeuma). Thus, the fact that the deceased are here called 7toAtxai can easily be understood as referring to them as fellow-citizens of Caunus and Termessus". The same scholar adds that "in this sense — 'fellow-citizens of the city of origin' — the term 7ioA,ixr|c; is also used for members of a club (collegium) formed by the citizens of Nysa in Rome" (G. Luderitz, "What is the politeuma?", Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. J.W. van Henten, P.W. van der Horst, Leiden-New York-Koln 1994, pp. 193-5). 7 - 9 . In all probability, Dolabella had no idea of the requirements of Jewish law, and is merely repeating here the reasons adduced by the Jewish envoy who came from Judaea requesting the exemption. The same reasons are probably alluded to by the word 8 e i o i 8 a i | i o v i a in Lentulus' exemption of Roman Ephesian Jews from military service, preserved in document no. 10, 11. 3-A. On the observation of the Sabbath, see Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath", pp. 414-447; Schurer, The History, pp. 141-142; P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge-London 1997, pp. 8 2 - 9 2 . 9 - 1 0 . urjxe xpo(|){bv xcov rcaxpicov K a i awn.9cov. From this phraseology we get the impression that Dolabella thought that the problem of the Jews was that of getting accustomed to a kind of food different from their own and unknown to them. He was probably unaware that the real problem was not that of getting accustomed, but the fact that the food distributed to the soldiers of the Roman army was forbidden by the Jewish dietary laws. The Latin version, however, uses a slightly different terminology, which is more appropriate to the reality: "nec alimentorum secundum patrias leges copiam habere". On the food given to the Roman soldiers, see R. W. Davies, "The Roman Military Diet", Britannia, 2, 1971, pp. 122-142. 11. Ka9cb<; K a i oi 7ip6 e\iox> fvyeuovec;. Exemption from military service had been granted by Lentulus in 49 BCE, as we learn from documents nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16. 11-12. SiScoui xf)v doxpaxeiav. Dolabella's use of the term doxpaxeia in general, without specifying to which Jews it applied, has been often interpreted as meaning that a general exemption was given by Dolabella, which covered all the Asian Jews. See Smallwood, The Jews, p. 128, and Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 17. See below, p. 148.
144
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
12. On the verb ovyxcopco, its meaning and its common use in Roman official documents, see document no. 3, commentary to 11. 2 - 3 . 12-13. xpflcrGai toiq 7 t a x p i o i c ; e6iC|j.oi<;. This and similar expressions, such as oncoc; vofioiq xe K a i eGeoiv K a i 5 i K a i o i < ; xoiq iSioiq xpcovxai, often appear in Greek inscriptions. They translate the Latin ut legibus et iustis et moribus suis uterentur. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 15. On the meaning of this right in practice, see below, pp. 430-435. 13. The Jewish right to assemble is also mentioned in document no. 7. See commentary to 11. 14-15 and to 11. 17-19. 14-15. K a i xcov 7tp6<; xac, Qvoiaq d^aipeuxxxcov. A Jewish sacrificial cult in the diaspora is unattested. Unlike most peoples in their time, the Jews used to sacrifice only in the Temple of Jerusalem. In the historical period under examination, the only case in which we know that the Jews used to sacrifice in the diaspora is that of the temple of Leontopolis in Egypt. See Juster, Les Juifs, p. 354, note 2, and A.M. Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 704. Whether Dolabella was aware of this Jewish peculiarity, however, is doubtful. True, in theory he may refer here to monies collected by Jews which had the purpose of paying for sacrifices to be offered in the Temple of Jerusalem (see below, document no. 18, commentary to 11. 7-8). We do not find here, however, any mention of Jerusalem or of the Temple as the final destination of the money. It is therefore possible that a general permission was given by Dolabella to the Jews to collect "sacred money". He may not have known what their purpose was, and may have presumed that the offerings were collected by the Jews in order to provide sacrifices to be made in loco, as all the peoples used to do in his time. 15-16. \)u.d<; TE P o i j A o u m x a u x a ypa\|/ai K a x d noXeiq. Since Ephesus was the chief city in the province, Dolabella apparently expects the Ephesians to undertake the transcription and the circulation of his commands throughout the province (see Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 105, note 1). The verb P o v A o u m is commonly used in Roman official letters and decrees to state the will of the writer. See document no. 1, commentary to 1. 8. As for the order of sending additional copies of the letter, numerous parallels in Roman official letters may be quoted. In a senate decree issued in 78 BCE concerning three Greek naval captains, we find: "...the consuls ... are to send letters to our magistrates, who are in charge of the provinces of Asia and Macedonia, and to their (city) magistrates, that the senate wishes and considers it just that these things be done in this fashion" (RDGE no. 22 = REG no. 66, 78 BCE, 11. 28-30). We also have a particularly close parallel to our text. It is a letter sent by a Roman official to the judicial centers of the province of Asia, asking them to send additional copies of the Roman instructions: "for these [reasons] I have written to the koinon of the Greeks, to you, to Ephesus, Tralles, Alabanda, M[yl]asa, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, Adramyttium in order that
9. Ant. XIV,
145
225-227
(each of) you to the cities in your own judiciary district might dispatch (copies of this letter)..." (RDGE no. 52 = RGE no. 77, 11. 4 2 - 4 7 , written in 51/50 or c. 29 BCE). In the Lex de provinciis praetoriis, too, we read: "The praetor [or the proconsul ? designated ?] to the province of Asia, >to whom< the province shall have fallen [in the consulship] of Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius [is to send] letters to the peoples [and states and to] the kings written down above [and] likewise [to those to whom] the consul [shall think it proper] to write, [as he shall deem it proper,] according to this statute" (Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 2 0 - 2 1 : Roman Statutes, I, ed. M.H. Crawford, London 1996, p. 254). In the Lex de piratis persequendis, too, we read:... v]naxoq oc, &v Tcpcoxo<; Y8vr|x[ai, ypdu|i]axa jipbq xoxtq §r\\io\)c, rc[dvxa<;, die, tyiXia. Kai a\)|i(i.a%ia eaxi npdq xov Sfpov xcov Pcoumcov, d7tocxeiA,dxco (FIRA I, no. 9 B, 11. 5-6. See also 11. 2 0 - 2 1 ) . The use of circular letters is amply attested also in the imperial period. Most known cases come from the papyri found in Egypt. An edict was issued in Egypt in 48 CE by the prefect Cn.Vergilius Capito, preceded by cover letters from the prefect and from the strategos. The cover letter of the prefect to the axpaxriyoq states: Gv[(aioc;) OuepyiAAoq K]aTcixcov rioo8i8covicoi, oxpaxrrycoi Odae[co<; 0nPai'So<;, x a i p e i v 6 erci] xfjq noXecaq [7tp]oE9r|Ka Sidxay|ia, [xotixoi) dvxiypa(j)ov] ene\i\\ta a [ o i ] . (5oi3A,o(j.ai o\>v [o]e ev [xd%ei ev] xe xfji ixnxpoTcoAei xou vouoi) Kai KaG' e[Kaaxov XOTCO]V at)xo TcpoGetvai aac|)ecn Kai e\)ar|(ioi<; [ypdu|iaoiv], i v a [Tcav]xi [eK]SnA,a yevnxai xd vn eu.oi) [oxaGevxa] (OGIS II, no. 665, II, 11. 8-12). See R. Katzoff, "Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: the Role of the Prefect", ANRW, 11, 13, 1980, p. 811. Similarly, to the edict issued by L. Mantennius Sabinus in 193 CE directed to Alexandria was appended a cover letter of the prefect to the oxpaxnyoi, which extends its application to the rest of Egypt (BGUII, no. 646,11. 11-25. See Katzoff, "Sources of Law", p. 817). We also have a letter addressed to the oxpaxrryoi of some or all of the vojiol of Egypt by the prefect of Egypt Q. Aemilius Saturninus in 198/9 CE (P.Yale inv. 299), where we read on 11. 12-15: "Each of you is to see to displaying in public, on a whitened board in characters that are clear and easily legible, a copy of this letter in the vofioi capitals and in each village". See G.M. Parassoglou, "Circular from a Prefect; Sileat omnibus Perpetuo Divinandi Curiositas", Texts Published in Honour of Herbert Chayyim Youtie: Collectanea Papyrologica, I, ed. A.E. Hanson, Bonn 1976, pp. 2 6 1 - 2 7 4 . 2
The year in which this letter was written does not appear in the document, but it may be easily discerned if we examine its historical background. In the reallotment of consular provinces in April 44 BCE, Dolabella, who had been consul in 44 BCE, received Syria. He left Italy after October 25, and probably reached Asia late in 44 or early in 43. There, by oppressive levies and exactions, he raised an army of two legions and a fleet. Reaching Syria, he was soon hemmed in by Cassius at Laodiceia and committed suicide, probably
146
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
1
late in July. Dolabella was therefore in the East from November/December 44 or January 43 B C E till July 43. Since our letter was most probably written by Dolabella while staying in Asia, as the Greek date suggests (see above, commentary to 1. 1) and was deposited in the local archives, probably of Ephesus, on January 2 4 , the year 44 is excluded since in this month Dolabella was still in Italy, and the year 42 is excluded because he was already dead. It follows that Dolabella wrote this letter on January 24 of 43 BCE. The fact that he uses the title awoKpdxcop, whether legally or not (see commentary to 1. 1) shows that by this time he had become in practice master of the province. Whether his letter concerning the Jews was written before or after his murder of Trebonius is impossible to establish, but we do know that by January 24 Dolabella had not yet been declared a public enemy in Rome. Only in the latter half of February or early in March did the Roman senate declare Dolabella a public enemy. Mendelssohn suggests that it was probably only after Trebonius' murder, when Dolabella remained de facto the supreme Roman authority in the East, that Hyrcanus sent his envoys to him. In this case, the date given at the beginning of the text would be a mistake, the correct one being probably the end of March. He therefore suggests emending erci Tcpmavecoc;... ixrjvoq 'ApTeuimcovoc; TcpcoTT], "quo pacto Martius sane recuperatur". His opinion, however, is not shared by later scholars. The formal features of the letter are in accord with those displayed by the official letters written by Roman magistrates in the first century BCE. The letter opens with the name of the sender in nominative, his title, and then the name of the addressee in dative followed by xaipeiv. Then comes the reason why the letter was written, that is, the request sent by Hyrcanus through an envoy, which is followed by Dolabella's decision (11. 10-15). At the end, we find the order of communication to further cities, introduced by the verb (3oi)X,o|j.ai, which is commonly used in this kind of letters (see document no. 1, commentary to 1. 8). 2
3
4
5
As for the content, in addition to the exemption from military service, three rights are granted to the Jews by Dolabella which are mentioned here for the first time, and which were extremely important from the Jewish point
1
The date in which Laodicea fell is now confirmed by D.R. Schwartz, "Cassius' Chronology and Josephus' Vagueness", SCI, 16, 1997, pp. 1 0 2 - 1 1 2 . On the political background of these years, see R. S y m e , "Observations on the Province of Cilicia", Anatolian Studies Presented to W.H. Buckler, 1939 = Roman Papers, I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, p. 140; MRR, II, pp. 3 1 7 , 344; III, 1986, p. 65; Magie, Roman Rule, II, p. 1272, note 47. S e e Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 4 1 9 . According to Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 6 8 . S e e the sources quoted by Magie, Roman Rule, II, p. 1273, note 4 8 . Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", pp. 2 4 9 - 2 5 0 . 2
3
4
5
9. Ant. XIV,
225-227
147
of view. One is the general permission to follow native Jewish customs, the second is the right to come together for sacred and holy rites in accordance with Jewish law and the last is the right to collect offerings. Caesar's decrees and their confirmations by the senate, as they are quoted by Josephus, always mentioned Jewish rights only in a general manner and in connection with high priestly rights and with the position of Hyrcanus II as high priest and ethnarch. Since, however, the documents pertaining to Caesar's days are all quoted by Josephus in a fragmentary, sometimes extremely fragmentary way, it is surely possible that sections which are not preserved by Josephus did mention specific rights conferred upon the Jews. This is possible and even probable, since docuraent no. 7,11. 12-16 shows that the right to assemble, to collect contributions of money and to hold common meals had been conferred by Caesar upon the Jews of Rome, surely before 46/45 BCE (see above, document no. 7, commentary to 11. 13-14), and possibly already in 47 BCE. The same Dolabella implies that he does not give to the Jews any new right, but limits himself to the confirmation of rights previously given: "I therefore, like the governors before me, grant them...". The identity of these fiyeixovec; is clear: the exemption from military service had been granted by the consul Lentulus six years before, and the rights pertaining to the traditional Jewish customs by Caesar. It is therefore not by chance that the same rights granted by Dolabella are also mentioned in the letter concerning the Delian Jews which had probably been written by Octavian: "I... permit these people... to assemble and feast in accordance with their native customs and ordinances" (document no. 7, 11. 16-19). Probably both Dolabella and Octavian do not issue new decisions concerning the Jews, but simply confirm the rights which had already been given to them in the past. The fact that Dolabella confirms Jewish rights in response to an explicit request from Hyrcanus is not surprising. Greek inscriptions show us that the initiative for grants always came from the interested party itself. We may cite the case of the Dionysiac Artists. From two letters of Sulla we learn that an envoy sent by the Dionysiac Artists came to Rome requesting that Sulla's grants to the Dionysiac Artists be confirmed by the senate (RDGE no. 49 = RGE no. 62, 84 and 81 BCE). Similarly, Marcus Antonius writes to the Association of the Greeks in Asia concerning the Association of Victorious Athletes: "Earlier I was met in Ephesus by Marcus Antonius Artemidoros ... in regard to the former privileges of the Association, that they may remain intact... (asking) that I consent to write immediately to you (about them) and I did consent.... And now again Artemidoros has met me (and asked) that they be permitted to dedicate a bronze tablet and engrave on it the aforementioned privileges. Preferring in no way to fail Artemidoros, who about these matters has come to me, I granted the dedication of the tablet as he asked me" (RDGE no. 57 = RGE no. 85, written in 42/41 or 33/32 BCE, 11. 5-31).
148
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
We may also notice that this is not the first time that we find Hyrcanus interceding in favor of the diaspora Jews. In some point between October 47 and the end of 46 BCE, Hyrcanus had already sent another envoy, Sopatrus, to the Roman magistrate who was in office at Laodicea, bringing documents concerning the Jewish rights (document no. 17). The possibility of interceding on behalf of the diaspora Jews would seem to be related to his being recognized by Caesar as high priest, ethnarch and 7rpooxdxr|<; xcov 'Io\)8aicov d8iKO04U£vcov in 47 BCE (document no. 2,11. 3-4). Particular attention should be paid to the fact that Dolabella grants daxpaxetav to the Jews without specifying to which Jews it applied — a fact interpreted in modern research as attesting that the exemption was not given only to Jews who were Roman citizens, but covered all the Jews of Asia. Smallwood, too, maintains that his exemption was more general than that given by Lentulus: "Dolabella's exemption was apparently wider and covered all Jews, as it does not restrict it to those with Roman citizenship", and this view is shared by Baumann, by Trebilco and by Stemberger. 6
7
8
It seems also probable that the exemption was given to the Jews in the different places of Asia where they lived and not only to those living in Ephesus. This is suggested by the fact that Dolabella asks the magistrates of Ephesus to write these instructions "to the various cities" (11. 15-16), which probably were dependent upon Ephesus from the administrative point of view. Similarly, we read in a letter written by a Roman official in 51/50 or 29 BCE: "For these [reasons] I have written to the Koinon of the Greeks, to you; to Ephesus, Tralles, Alabanda, M[yl]asa, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, Adramyttium in order that (each of) you to the cities in your own judiciary district might dispatch (copies of this letter) and see to it that in the most conspicuous place on a pilaster on white stone there is engraved this letter". We may recall that later on, Marcus Agrippa Vipsanius, too, wrote a letter to the magistrates of Ephesus which apparently concerned all Asian Jews (no. 24, 11. 2-5). 9
6
On this particular aspect of his functions, see Daniela Piattelli, Concezioni giuridiche e metodi costruttivi dei giuristi orientali, Milano 1 9 8 1 , p. 6 9 and Ephrat Habas, The Patriarch in the Roman-Byzantine Era: the Making of a Dynasty (Hebr.), Ph.D., Tel A v i v University 1992, pp. 4 7 - 4 8 (forthcoming in the E.J. Brill Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums series). S e e V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 307. S m a l l w o o d , The Jews, p. 128; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 2 4 8 ; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 17; G. Stemberger, "Die Juden im Romischen Reich", p. 9. RDGE no. 5 2 = RGE no. 77,11. 4 2 - 5 0 . For a comparison between this list of cities and that preserved in Pliny, which reflects the situation in Augustus' time, see Sherk, RDGE, p. 275. 7
8
9
Ant. XIV, 228. Josephus'
Ant.
Closing
Comments
149
XIV, 228
Josephus' Closing C o m m e n t s
228
(x. 13) Kai xauxa |IEV 6 Aoka^zXkac, Tpicavoij rcpeafteuaaiievou rcpoq a\)xov e%apiaaxo XOIQ rpexepou;. 1. Ao^opeUaq FLAMV. 1-2. TpKavco n p e a P e u a a n e v c o F. 2 - 3 . t o i q rpexepOK; om. V.
Translation These, then, were the favours which Dolabella granted to our people when Hyrcanus sent an envoy to him.
10. Ant. X I V , 2 2 8 - 2 2 9 September 19, 4 9 B C E
This is a fragmentary and probably indirect quotation of a decree issued by the consul Lucius Cornelius P.f.-n. Lentulus Crus which exempts the Jewish Roman citizens of Ephesus from military service. Bibliography F. Ritschl, "Epimetrum zu Bd. XXVIII p. 5 8 6 - 6 1 4 : R o m i s c h e Senatusconsulte bei Josephus", RM, 29,1874, pp. 3 4 1 - 2 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 7 3 - 1 8 4 ; idem, "Zu den Urkunden bei Josephus", RM, 3 2 , 1877, p. 2 5 3 , note 1; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 ; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, p. 2 0 2 ; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 94; J. Suolahti, "The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus in the Year 4 9 B.C.", Arktos, 2, 1958, pp. 1 5 2 - 1 6 3 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, pp. 84—85; R. S y m e , "The Stemma of the Sentii Saturnini", Historia, 13, 1964, pp. 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 = Roman Papers, II, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, pp. 6 1 0 - 6 1 1 ; S. Applebaum, "Jews and Service in the Roman Army", Roman Frontier Studies 1967, The Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress held at Tel Aviv, Tel A v i v 1971, p. 181; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second T e m p l e " (Hebr), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980, p. 375; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 127; A.M. Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 1 3 , 1 9 8 0 , p. 7 4 3 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 1 6 4 - 1 6 5 ; G. Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo console nel 4 9 a. C " , Romanitas-Christianitas; Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der romischen Kaiserzeit. Johannes Straub zum 70, ed. G. Wirth, K.H. Schwarte, J. Heinrichs, Berlin-New York 1982, pp. 1 5 4 - 1 6 3 ; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 247; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 113; E. SchUrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, pp. 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 ; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, pp. 1 6 - 1 7 , 172; L. Troiani, "The noA-ixeia of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, p. 14; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 7 1 .
228
(x. 13) Aeuicioc; 5E Ktvxkoc, \maxoc, e u t e v TDOXixac, 'Pooumcov 'IouSaiouc;, iepa 'IOUSCC'IKCX EXOVTCK;
10. Ant. XIV,
229
Kai rcoio\)VTa<; ev 'E(j)eacp, rcpo xov |3r|u.axo<; 5eiai5ai|a.oviac; eveKa axpaxeiaq aneXvaa 7cp6 8c65eKa KaA.av8cov OKxcoPpicov AevKicp AevxA,cp rai'cp MapKeAAxp vnaxoiq. 7tapf-|oav Tixoq 'A\mioq Tixov vibq B&Xfioq Opaxia np£G$evxr\q, Tixoq Toyyiot; Tixou vibq Kpoaxouiva, Koivxot; 'Paiatot; Koivxov, Tixo<; Iloujrnioi; Tixov Aoyyivoq, Tdiot; EepomAioq TaTou vibq Triprixiva BpaK/oc; xiAlapxo<;, TlonXioq KXovaioq YlonXiov Ovexcopia V&XXoq, rdioq Sevxioq ra'l'o'u * vibe, SaPaxiva. 4. 4. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 11. 12.
151
228-229
5
10
aneXvoa coni. Gronov. ex Lat. dimisi; aneXvae codd. 8eica,P. 8eKa8t>o A M . Borghesi: "Arniioq codd. Borghesi: Bd^yoq PLA: Bd?uo<; F: rdA.poq M. K d a i o q F: Kdooioc; L: 'Pdaiot; A M : 'Paiaioq Gronovius: 'PaiKioi; Mendelssohn; K a t o i o i ; Niese. BpaKKoqP: Bpdy%o<; M. KaAxrucioq vel KAomoq coni. Niese. Gronovius: e y w P: 'Excopta V: 'Epcopia rell. post T a i o u lacunam indicavit Gronovius.
Translation And Lucius Lentulus, the consul, declared. Those Jews who are Roman citizens and observe and practice Jewish rites at Ephesus, I released from military service before the tribunal on the twelfth day before the Kalends of October in consideration of religious scruples, in the consulship of Lucius Lentulus and Gaius Marcellus. Those present were the legate Titus Ampius Balbus, son of Titus, of the Horatian tribe, Titus Tongius, son of Titus, of the Crustuminian tribe, Quintus Raesius, son of Quintus, Titus Pompeius Longinus, son of Titus, the military tribune Gaius Servilius Bracchus, son of Gaius, of the Teretine tribe, Publius Clusius Gallus, son of Publius, of the Veturian tribe, Gaius Sentius, son of Gaius ... son of... of the Sabatine tribe. 1
1
"Caesius": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 7 1 .
Commentary 1. AeiJKioc; Se AevxXoq vnaxoq. Lucius Cornelius P.f. — n . Lentulus Cms was consul in 49 BCE. His political career started in 58 BCE as praetor, and tragically ended in 48 BCE, when he was killed in Egypt. See the sources quoted by Broughton, MRR, II, pp. 194, 256, 276; III, 1986, p. 67. 1-2. Whether the Jews mentioned here were real Roman citizens is not certain. Troiani maintains that the expression 7CoAixa<; 'Pcojxaicov 'Iov8aio\)<; which appears here does not mean exactly "Roman citizens" but has a
152
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
more indefinite and vague meaning ("The 7toA,iTeta of Israel", p. 14). Prof. Modrzejewski pointed out to me that the real problem is that of reconstructing the original decree issued by Lentulus. If it was written directly in Greek, the word 7io?tiTat may have other meanings beyond that of citizenship, as in Octavian's decree concerning Seleucus (RDGE no. 58, II, 1. 21) or in Dolabella's letter to Ephesus (see document no. 9, commentary to 1. 7). (The different meanings to be attached to the term 7coA,ixai have been dealt with above, pp. 27-30.) If, on the other hand, we have here a translation from an original Latin decree, noAiTai would imply cives, in which case the Jews would be Roman citizens. In this last case, it is not difficult to imagine how these Jews became Roman citizens. Many of the Jewish prisoners of war whom Pompey had brought to Rome and sold into slavery were liberated by their masters. Roman Jews are attested in Jerusalem, at Berenice and in Asia Minor, where many thousand of Roman citizens were living in the first century BCE. On the ways in which the Jews could became cives romani, see Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", pp. 174-176; V. Colorni, Legge ebraica e leggi locali, Milano 1945, p. 14 and Schurer, The History, III, 1, pp. 133-134. On the Jews possessing Roman citizenship who lived in Asia Minor, see also Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 271, note 30. Even in this case, though, we may wonder whether they were real full Roman citizens or rather had the legal status of Junian Latins. Many (most?) Jews had arrived at Rome as slaves after Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE and were later manumitted by their owners. The question is whether their manumission had been formal or informal. To be formal, the manumission had to take place in any of three possible ways: 1) by the enrollment of a slave on the census list of Roman citizens; 2) by a particular fictional use of the vindicatio in libertatem, which was brought when a free man was wrongfully held as a slave; 3) by testament. A manumission, on the other hand, was informal when it took place per epistulam, by a letter conferring freedom, or inter amicos, which involved a "declaration" made before friends (or witnesses). The improperly manumitted slaves got freedom, but not citizenship (see A. Watson, Roman Slave Law, Baltimore-London 1987, pp. 24-26). Possibly, in the first century BCE many (most?) Jews in Rome were not real Roman citizens but Junian Latins. See H. Castritius, "Die Haltung Roms gegeniiber den Juden in der ausgehenden Republik und in der Prinzipatszeit", in: Judentum und Antisemitismus von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, eds. T. Klein, V. Losemann, G. Mai, Diisseldorf 1984, p. 25 and L.V. Rutgers, "Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First century C.E.", CA, 13, 1994, p. 60. As for the number of the Jews exempted by Lentulus from military service, opinions differ. Smallwood maintains that it must have been "infinitesimally small" and that the significance of Lentulus' action lay in the principle of toleration which it embodied (Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 127-8), while Tcherikover and Stern
10. Ant. XIV,
228-229
153
suggest that a considerable number of Jews possessed Roman citizenship at the time (bibliographical details in Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 258, note 21). 2 - 3 . iepa 'IouSa'iKa exovxa<; Kai rcoiouvxai; ev 'E^eacp. The Latin version translates: "sacra Iudaica habentes iisque operantes". Ephesus was one of the thirteen assize-centers in the province of Asia. See A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 671. 3. nob xofj pfjuaxoc;. The Roman governor had a circuit for administering justice, a conventus. This was strictly a division of the province and the governor's court met in the chief city of each division. There were thirteen such divisions in thcprovince of Asia in republican times, and Ephesus was one of the assize-centres, the others being Adramyttium, Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Tralles, Miletus, Mylasa, Alabanda, Cibyra, Synnada, Apameia and Philomelium. See C. Habicht, "New Evidence from Asia", JRS, 65, 1975, pp. 6 7 - 7 1 ; G.P. Burton, "Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire", JRS, 65, 1975, pp. 9 2 - 9 4 and Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor" (supra, commentary to 11. 2-3), p. 671. 3-4. 8eiai5aiu.ovia<; eveKa. It cannot be ruled out that Lentulus is referring here to his own SeiciSaiuovia. The motif of Roman piety is a traditional one and appears in many official documents. Reynolds observes that "the concession accepted as in accordance with the traditional piety of the Roman people recalls a number of documents (RDGE nos. 23, 34, 38) which show the Romans self-consciously proclaiming their religious scrupulosity as the motive for granting privileges to peoples and sanctuaries" (Reynolds, Aphr., p. 80). The term 8eioi8aiux)via appears in a letter sent by Marcus Antonius to Plarasa-Aphrodisias in connection with the rights of a temple (RDGE no. 28 B, 39-35 BCE, 1. 11; see also the senatus consultum which confirms the right of aavXia given to the temple of Aphrodite: Aphr. no. 8, 1. 56) and the senatus consultum which confirms to the Samians and to the Coans the grants of aavXia for their respective temples of Hera and Asclepius (RDGE no. 32, 23 CE, 1. 13). It seems, however, more probable that the SeioiSaiuovia mentioned in our text is that of the Jews. What Lentulus refers to by this term may be explained by what we find, six years later, in the letter written by Dolabella, in which he exempts the Jews from military service because they "cannot undertake military service because they may not bear arms or march on the days of the Sabbath; nor can they obtain the native foods to which they are accustomed" (document no. 9,11. 5-10). On the ban on carrying weapons and on Sabbath journeys, see the sources quoted in Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 120, note 53. 4. All the Greek manuscripts give aneXvce. aneXvca is an emendation suggested by Gronovius, following the Latin version which gives "dimisi", which is also found in the other two extant versions of the same decree of Lentulus preserved in documents nos. 13 and 16. The verb cr/toMco often
154
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
appears in official Roman documents. See the letter concerning King Perseus (RDGE no. 40, 171-170 BCE, 1. 30) and the senatus consultum de Asclepiade (RDGE no. 22, 78 BCE, 1. 8). 5. rcpd 5c68£kcx KaX,av8cov 'OicxcoPptcov. This means September 20 for Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 85. Fprni suggests September 18 since the months June and September had 29 days (G. Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 155, note 6); but the Romans reckoned inclusively, that is, they include the day from which a series begins as the first of the series (see A.K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic, Princeton 1967, p. 22). That is why the twelfth day before the Kalends of October refers to September 19, as Marcus established (Loeb. ed., VII, p. 569, note e). As for the month, since Juster's days scholars suggest that this may be a scribal error for KaA,av8cov KornvxiA-icov which appears in document no. 13, 11. 4 - 5 . See Juster, Les Juifs, p. 144, note 8; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 127, note 24. On the possible reason why we find two different months in the manuscripts of these documents, see document no. 13, pp. 174-175. The early date is preferred since armies were usually recruited in the spring and not in the autumn. (The fact that Lentulus' decision concerning the Jews is already mentioned in document no. 12, which was written on Thargelion 20 of an unknown year, is not relevant here. According to Marcus, the month of Thargellion corresponded to May/June. If the year was the same, namely, 49 BCE, even if we take the latest possibility, namely, if we take Thargellion to go from the end of May to the end of June, it follows that the document from Delos was written almost at the same time, if not earlier, than Lentulus' decision. This means that, in all probability, document no. 12 was written in 48 and not in 49 BCE, in which case it has no relevance whatsover for establishing the date of Lentulus' decree). 5-6. The mention of the names of the two consuls in office had the purpose of indicating the year, which in this case was 49 BCE. On Lucius Lentulus, see above, commentary to 1. 1. As for the other consul, he was C. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus, praetor by 52. See MRR, II, p. 256. 6. Tcapfjaav, which translates the Latin adfuerunt, is also used in senate decrees to introduce the names of the senators who were present at the writing of the decree. See above, document no. 8, commentary to 1. 6. 6-7. Tixoq "AUJUO<; Tixou moq BdA,po<; 'Opaxia TcpeaPewic;. Greek manuscripts give BdA/yo<;, Bd?uo<; and rdA,(3oc;, which are mistaken spellings, as was observed already by Ritschl ("Romische Senatusconsulte", pp. 341-342). Titus Ampius Balbus, tribunus plebis in 63, praetor in 58, raised levies for Pompey about Capua and served as legatus pro praetore in Asia. In 48, reports of Caesar's imminent arrival prevented him from robbing the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. See E. Klebs, "T. Ampius Balbus", RE, I, 2, 1894, no. 1, coll. 1978-9 and MRR, II, pp. 266, 280. Having been praetor
10. Ant. XIV,
228-229
155
already in 59, he was most probably the oldest of the legati. Suolahti observes that Ampius was a suitable right-hand man for Lentulus, for he had been the propraetor of Asia in the year 58. From the fact that document no. 11, 11. 1-2 calls him 7cp£0"P£\)xf"j<; Kai avxioxpaxryyoq Suolahti argues that he had the title pro praetore, and that he may have managed the civil administration of the province ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", pp. 155-156). 7 - 8 . Tixo<; Toyyioq Tixov vibq Kpooxouiva. Suolahti maintains that he can be considered a legatus. The name Tongius is unattested, and may be a copyst's error. Suolahti observes that the nearest possible gentes would be the Tuccii, Turii and Togonii, but "the fact that other sources do not mention the name Tongius does not absolutely exclude the existence of this name. Several of the lowest officials of senatorial rank belonged to very little known gentes, as the inscriptions show. Tongius' place of origin is not known, but tribus Clustumina may point to the Sabine-Umbrian region" ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 157). 8-9. K6ivxo<; Paiaioq Koi'vxov. Suolahti is probably correct in reading Rasios, as in AM, and not Kaiaioq, as Marcus suggests (Loeb. ed., VII, p. 571). In fact, in document no. 16,1. 4, 'Paiaiot; appears in all the manuscripts. Suolahti suggests that he was either a legatus or quaestor. Persons called Raesius or Resius, he observes, are mentioned in inscriptions in different parts of Italy, but the gens probably originated in Etruria ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 157). 9. Tixoq IlouTniioc"; Tixov Aoyyivo<;. The name of his tribe, Cornelia, is preserved in document no. 16, 1. 5. Suolahti observes that he was either a quaestor or a tribunus militum, and that the first rank seems more probable. Lentulus Cms can have had three legati, and the copyist would scarcely have left out the official rank of the first military tribune. He may have been the son of the tribunus militum T. Pompeius T.f. Corn(elia), who belonged to Strabo's council. To the same family belonged probably also T. Pompeius Reginus or Beginus, who had large estates in Transalpine Gaul. T. Pompeius, recorded in the year 49, was possibly a brother of this Reginus ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 157-8). See also Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 165, note 14. 9 - 1 1 . rdioq EepomAux; Taiou vibq Tnpr|xtva BpaK/oc; %iA,iap%o<";. He is the only tribunus militum mentioned in this document. See MRR, II, p. 264. Suolahti observes that the name Brocchus, i.e. "a man with prominent teeth", was originally an individual adnomen and is found as a cognomen in some other gentes too. The family of Servilius Brocchus may have been one of the several plebeian branches of a larger patrician gens. These branches were descended mainly from freedmen and new citizens ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 156). 11-12. UbnXwq KA,ot>aio<; TlonXiov Ouexopia TaXXoq. Suolahti maintains
156
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
that he was a tribunus militum ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 156). 12. Tdioq Sevxiot; Taiou. An historical identification is extremely problematic. His name is Espou'Duoc; in the Codex Parisinus, while in document no. 16, 1. 8, the manuscripts call him Temioq or Texxio^. From this document we also learn that he was a military tribune and belonged to the Aemilian tribe. See MRR, II, p. 264. Suolahti observes that this name is otherwise unknown and may be a corruption for the more common Tettius. The same is suggested by Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 162. A gens of this name was very widespread in central Italy. The council of Cn. Pompeius Strabo, in 89 BCE, too, contains several tribuni militum and praefecti from families otherwise not recorded ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 156). A senator C. Teutius C. f.Aem. is mentioned by Taylor (Lily Ross Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: the Thirty-five Urban and Rural Tribes, Rome 1960, pp. 253, 259), and Badian suggests that Teutius could be a transliteration of Tutius ("Notes on Roman Senators of the Republic", Historia, 12, 1963, p. 141). According to Syme, we should not imagine two independent persons, C. Sentius C.f.Aem. and C. Teutius/Tettius C.f.Aem: "this man and Teutius, or Tutius, appears to be the same person, each the doublet of the other; and therefore they should not be accorded independent existence in the manuals" ("The Stemma of the Sentii Saturnini", Historia, 13, 1964, pp. 161-162 = Roman Papers, II, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, pp. 610-611). A possible solution is suggested by Forni. Of this name, he observes, we have a number of sure points. His name is composed of seven letters, of which the second one e and the last four tios are sure. Uncertain are the first and the third letter. "Un semplice sguardo alle forme delle lettere nei manoscritti greci e alia loro evoluzione consente di rendersi conto come il sigma lunato potesse essere facilmente confuso e scambiato con T e parimenti con Y e con T, e viceversa. Percio sotto il profilo paleografico Sentios, Teutios e Tettios hanno le medesime probability di essere sia lezioni di archetipo, sia varianti, con la sola condizione che, se si fosse trattato di un Tutius, il gentilizio, vista la persistenza di e come seconda lettera, avrebbe dovuto essere traslitterato Teutius e non Toutios. II prenome C. e corrente tra i Sentii nel I secolo a.C. e in eta augustea, ma lo e anche fra i Tettii. Dei tre gentilizi Sentius e senza dubbio quello piu attestato nelle fonti letterarie e piu di una volta proprio nelle opere di Giuseppe Flavio; tuttavia la lezione Centios non pud essere posposta alle altre; qualsiasi nome di persona da un senso, e quasi sempre il medesimo, a un contesto e la lettura di qualsiasi nome e facile e difficile a un tempo, salvo rare eccezioni. Percio la rinuncia all'indagine sul personaggio non soltanto e opportuna, ma resta anche criticamente corretta, fintantoche perdurranno le incertezze sul suo nome" (Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 163). 12. Xafkrciva. Suolahti observes that the tribus Sabatina is found in Italy
10. Ant. XIV,
228-229
157
only in Etruria and Gallia Cisalpina ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 159). A lacuna between the name of the tribe and raTou is already indicated by Gronovius (see Loeb ed., VII, p. 570). If the lacuna was large enough to include two additional names, the name of the person belonging to the Sabatina tribe may have been Gaius Pompeius, son of Gaios, who appears in document no. 16 in the ninth place, two after Gaios Sentios (or Teutios). See Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 161. This is the first of a series of documents dealing with the exemption of Asian Jews from military service in 49 BCE. At the time, the East was unwillingly involved An the final military confrontation between Caesar and Pompey. Lentulus raised two legions in Asia: (Pompey) legiones ejfecerat civium Romanorum IX..., duas ex Asia, quas Lentulus consul conscribendas curaverat. The situation is vividly depicted by Rice Holmes: "The kings, the tetrarchs, the petty dynasts, the self-governing communities of Achaia, Asia Minor, and Syria, the tax-farming syndicates of the provinces which obeyed his (Pompey's) influence furnished money or bullion;... fleets from the province of Asia and the Cyclades, from Corcyra, Athens, Bithynia, Pontus, Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt thronged the Adriatic and the Ionian Sea. The five legions which Pompey had brought from Italy were reinforced by a legion composed of the veterans who had served in Cilicia under Cicero, by another formed of old soldiers who had settled in Crete and Macedonia, and by two which Lentulus, as consul, had raised from the Roman inhabitants of Asia...". 1
2
Johnson, Coleman-Norton and Bourne suggest that the unusual circumstance that a Roman consul issued edicts in a province governed by another magistrate may be ascribed to one, or all, of the following conditions: "1. normal administrative practices were in abeyance during the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (49-48 BCE), since, as Cicero said (Mil. 4, 11) "laws indeed are silent amid arms" (silent enim leges inter arma); 2. Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus, the consul, probably construed his interference in provincial affairs as proper because of the senatus consultum ultimum (ultimate decree of the Senate), which had been directed against Caesar... and under which the consul could act at his discretion to safeguard the State's interests; 3. Lentulus was in the province of Asia to recruit soldiers
1
Caesar, Bell.Civ. Ill, 4, 1. See also C i c , An. IX, 9, 2 and D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton 1 9 5 0 , 1 , p. 4 0 2 . T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, III, N e w York 1967 (first ed. 1923), pp. 1 1 3 - 1 1 4 . On L. Lentulus Crus recruiting in Asia, see also the works of Cichorius and Rostovtzeff quoted by Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 197, note 56 and Saulnier, "Lois romaines", pp. 1 6 7 - 1 6 9 . On the political background, see also R. S y m e , "Observations on the Province of Cilicia", Anatolian Studies Presented to W.H. Buckler, 1939 = Roman Papers, I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, p. 130. 2
158
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
for Pompey (Caesar, BC 3, 4, 1), who was defending the State, and to him either the Jews appealed for exemption (see Doc. 101, pr) or the governor referred the matter on the ground that Lentulus had higher authority (maior potestas)"'. As for the formal features of this text, the first phrase Aeuicux; 8e AevrAoc; imtxTOc; elrcev, which is also the beginning of the second version of Lentulus' exemption (preserved in document no. 13), suggests that its original form was that of a decree. This is confirmed by the third version of the same text preserved in document no. 16, where on 1. 14 we read e m TOUTCOV 6 AevxA,o<; Soyuxx e^eOexo (or ecVriveyice). Decrees issued by Roman magistrates before their councils are well attested since the end of the second century B C E . Our document, however, is quoted in a fragmentary way. The list of the witnesses given is only partial, as we see if we compare it with that which appears in document no. 16, which gives six additional names. Juster is probably correct in observing: "A too hasty hand found it too long to copy the document in its entirety, and this hand is that of a copyist, not of an historian". In any case, this does not constitute an isolated case. Forni has observed that in the senatus consultum de Panamara, too, issued in 39 BCE, ten names of the witnesses are preserved with the name of the tribe, but only four of them give the cognomen. As for the relation between this version of Lentulus' decision and that preserved in document no. 16, if we compare the names of the witnesses which appear in document no. 10 with those mentioned in document no. 16, we see that the persons mentioned are definitely the same ones, but some of the names are given in a different way, in a fashion which does not allow us to establish which was the original text and which the copy. Sometimes document no. 10 is more complete, as in the case of the second witness, Tixoq Toyyioq Tixov vioq Kpooxouiva, for whom it gives the name of the father, lacking in document no. 16. In other cases, however, it is document no. 16 which is more complete, adding the name of the tribes of the fourth and the seventh person, respectively, Titus Pompeius Longinus son of Titus and Gaius Sentios son of Gaios, which is lacking in document no. 10. Moreover, our text specifies on 1. 3 that Lentulus' decision was made before a tribunal, information which does not appear in document no. 16. 3
4
5
6
In conclusion, it appears that document no. 10 is a short version of Lentulus' decision preserved at length in document no. 16, but it is not a
3
4
5
6
Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, pp. 8 4 - 8 5 . S e e above, pp. 1 6 - 1 7 , 45^16. Les Juifs, p. 144, note 19. Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 160.
10. Ant. XIV,
228-229
159
summary. The two documents seem rather to represent two different and independent versions of the same text. Lentulus' decision, however, was probably one. There were not two edicts of Lentulus, one concerning Ephesian Jews, issued in June 49, and another covering all the Asian Jews issued in October of the same year, as Mendelssohn has maintained. Forni stresses that the content of the decrees is basically the same, as is the sequence of the expressions which appear in the three versions, and the day of the month in the date is identical in all three. Juster's conclusion, that there probably was only one edict, and it covered all Asian Jews, is generally accepted today. As for the decision itself, it is difficult to establish whether it is quoted fragmentarily, since other decisions made by Roman magistrates, too, are similarly preserved in Greek inscriptions in an extremely concise way. This may be due to accidental reasons, such as the fact, for example, that some of the extant decrees are preserved not as independent texts but quoted in documents written later. The case of Sulla's decree concerning the lands of Oropos is a good example. It is mentioned as a legal precedent in a letter written many years later by the consuls of the year 73 BCE. It is clear that it is quoted verbatim, but probably not in full: "Lucius Cornelius Sulla according to the decision of his Advisory Board appears to have made his decision (as follows): 'For the sake of fulfilling a vow I grant to the temple of Amphiaraos land everywhere in all directions for one thousand feet, in order that this land too may be inviolate'..." (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70,11. 4 2 - 4 5 ) . 7
8
9
It appears that our text, too, may have been copied from a quotation inserted in another document. This is suggested by three elements: 1) at the beginning, on 1. 1, we find the verb in its past form: "Lucius Lentulus, the consul, said", while decrees, and later edicts issued by Roman prefects, always start with the present "so and s o . . . says"; 2) in Lentulus' decision, too, the main verb, cmekvoe or aneXvca (1. 4), appears in the past form, while in the decrees decisions are always formulated in the present: "I decide that (OTCCOC;)..." followed by the future tense; 3) finally, the date is given by the name of the consuls, which is the normal use, but in our case it looks strange, since one of the consuls is also the person issuing the decree. This detail suggests that two different hands were operating separately here. In spite of the fact that the text is quoted indirectly and fragmentarily, it contains all the elements usually present in known decrees: the name of the issuer, the date, complete with year, month and day, the reasons which
7
On the fact that t w o different months, June and October, have been preserved by the manuscripts of documents nos. 10 and 13, see the explanation suggested by Forni, below, pp. 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 . See Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 155. Les Juifs, p. 144, note 8. See Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 113, note 84. 8
9
160
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
prompted the decree itself (identified as religious scruples), the decision and the witnesses. These elements appear, though, in a quite different order from the usual one (preserved in document no. 16: date, witnesses, and the decision) — which is possibly explained by the fact that we have here an indirect quotation. The mention of Lentulus' advisory board finds numerous parallels in decrees issued by Roman magistrates (see above, document no. 1, commentary to 1. 12). As for their composition, however, we have few instances in which the names of the persons belonging to them are preserved. One such instance is the senatus consultum de Oropiorum et publicanorum controversiis (RDGE no. 23 = RGE no. 70, 73 BCE, 11. 6-16), where we hear of a council including sixteen persons, while no name is preserved in the senatus consulta which mentions Sulla's previous decisions concerning Tabae (RDGE no. 17, 81/80 BCE [?], 1. 9) and Stratonikeia (RDGE no. 18 = RGE no. 63, 81 BCE, 1. 96). As for the composition of Lentulus' council, Suolahti observes that "since Lentulus was the Commander-in-Chief of two legions, his council probably consisted of their officers". After examining the single cases, this scholar concludes that the composition of Lentulus' council can be considered traditional, although two of its members, having special wartime functions, were probably promoted freedmen or provincials". He also notices several similarities between Lentulus' council and that of Cn. Pompeius Strabo's council which met in 89 BCE. "Both mark a clear difference in social level between the knights and the non-commissioned officers. A proportionately greater number of the members of Lentulus' council came from comparatively new and unknown families. The difference may be due, in part, to the fact that the headquarters in Greece could not send very prominent officers on Lentulus' enlistment expedition. The shortage of officers, caused by the war, may also explain why there were at least two possible freedmen in the council of Lentulus. One of them, however, seems to have already attained knighthood". Suolahti identifies as the reason for the lowering of the social level the fact that, after the Social War, several Italian gentes who had attained the rights of citizenship, thanks to the war, had had time for their members to become or try to become officials. Such were probably the Tongii, Raesii, Clusii, Teutii, and even the Ampii Balbi, the first of whose known officials begins the list. These men, who, judging by their names, came from the non-Latin gentes, now took over those officers' posts that the old nobility did not care to, or could not, take over. Accordingly, no member of the council is a patrician, and only one of them came from the consular branch of a plebeian gens, and even he, Sex. Atilius Serranus, was probably a descendant of the equestrian gens Gavia. A further point of similarity between Strabo's and Lentulus' councils is the fact that several of their members belonged to
10. Ant. XIV,
228-229
161
the local nobility. In the council of Lentulus we find businessmen living in Asia Minor". From 11. 2 - 3 we learn that Lentulus' exemption from military service applied to the Jews living at Ephesus. This, however, does not mean that it applied only to them. Ephesus was the chief city of Asia, and this is just one within a series of documents concerning the same issue and the same area (namely, documents nos. 11, 12, 13, 16). For these reasons, scholars wonder whether all Roman Jews living in Asia were exempted from military service in 49 BCE. Juster suggests that the edict covered all Asian J e w s . While difficult to prove, it is not impossible that the decree was originally accompanied by a letter containing a provision that copies of the decree had to be sent to other Greek cities, as we often find in Greek inscriptions. In all probability, the Jews themselves requested to be exempted from military service, as it clearly appears from document no. 15. The initiative had been taken by a certain Dositheus, son of Cleopatrides, the Alexandrian. What we have here therefore is Lentulus' affirmative answer to the appeal of the Jews, which had probably been brought to him through the legate and propraetor Titus Ampius Balbus (see document no. 11). 10
11
12
Lentulus' and Dolabella's consideration for Jewish needs is not surprising. We have a letter written by an unidentified Roman official to the Dionysiac Artists, where he states that he grants them privileges "for the sake of Dionysos and [of the other] gods and of the way of life which you have preferred" (RDGE no. 44 = RGE no. 37, 146 BCE, 11. 3^1). Moreover, the exemption of the Jews from the military service is by no means a unique case. A similar exemption was also granted to the Dionysiac Artists, to whom Sulla writes : "Those privileges and honors and immunities from the liturgies which to you ... our senate, magistrates and promagistrates have given [(and) gran]ted, these you shall keep, and, [just as formerly, you shall be] immune from every liturgy and military service" (RDGE no. 49 B = RGE no. 62 B, 84 BCE, 11. 3-10). Exemption from military service was also granted to the Association of Worldwide Wreath-Wearing Victors in the Sacred Games in 42/41 or 33/32 BCE, as we learn from a letter of Marcus Antonius which states: "in regard to the rest of what it asked of me in the way of honors and privileges, (namely) freedom from military service.... I did consent" (RDGE no. 57 = RGE no. 85,11. 12-19). It is interesting to note that in all these cases,
1 0
Suolahti, "The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", pp. 1 6 2 - 3 . S e e also H.B. Mattingly, "The consilium of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 89 B.C.", Athenaeum, 5 3 , 1975, pp. 2 6 2 - 2 6 6 . Les Juifs, p. 144, note 8. See for example RDGE no. 2 2 = RGE no. 6 6 (78 B C E ) , 11. 2 8 - 3 0 ; RDGE no. 5 2 = RGE no. 77 ( 5 1 / 5 0 or c. 29 B C E ) , 11. 4 2 - 4 7 and RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86 (between 4 2 and 30 BCE), letter I, 11. 5 - 8 . In Dolabella's confirmation of Lentulus' exemption of the Jews from military service, too, w e read: "and it is my wish that you write these instructions to the various cities" (document no. 9,11. 1 5 - 1 6 ) . 11
1 2
162
/ / . The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
the recipients of the grant were groups of people identified by criteria other than ethnic or geographical ones — in other words, a kind of "non-territorial" peoples. 13
3
On exemption from Roman military service, see also b e l o w , pp. 4 4 0 - 1 , 4 5 6 .
11. Ant.
XIV, 230
4 9 or 4 8 B C E
Letter sent by Titus Ampius Balbus, son of Titus, legate and propraetor, to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, concerning Lentulus' exemption of the Jews of Asia from military service. Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 ; H. Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden unter der Romerherrschaft", MGWJ, 3 0 , 1886, pp. 3 3 5 - 3 4 0 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 107; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1 9 1 4 , p. 143; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton 1950, p. 4 0 2 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, pp. 8 5 - 8 6 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 127; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1 9 8 1 , pp. 1 6 4 - 1 6 5 .
230
(x. 1 3 ) Tixoq "A\mwq Tixov vioc, BdA,poc; TcpecPemfiq Kai dvxiaxpdxnyoc; 'Ec^eaicov dp%ouoi PoaAfj 8f||i.cp %aipeiv. 'IouSaiovc; xovq ev xfj 'Aaia Aet>KIOC; AEVXAXX; 6 vnaxoq, e\io\> evxvyx&vovxoq vn&p a\)xcov, djceA/uoe xfjc; oxpaxeiac;. aixncduevoq 8e |iexd xavxa Kai rcapd Oavvio\) xov avxiGxpaxTiyoa) Kai Ttapd AE\JK1O\) 'Avxcoviou xov avxixajiiot) enext>xov, viiaq xe Pot)^o(a,ai (|)povxiaai i v a UT| XIC; avxoic; 8ievox^f]. 1. 1. 3-4.
Borghesi: "Aitmoi; codd. Borghesi cum Lat.: BdMxx; PF: BeXPoq L A M . AOIJKIO<; P F A M .
6.
Ernesti: dp%ioxpaxfiyoD codd.: tribunum plebis Lat.
5
Translation Titus Ampius Balbus, son of Titus, legate and propraetor, to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, greeting. Lucius Lentulus, the consul, has at my petition exempted the Jews in Asia from military service. And on making the same request later of Fannius, the propraetor, and of Lucius Antonius, the
164
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
proquaestor, I obtained my request; and it is my wish that you take care that no one shall molest them. Commentary 1. The legate Titus Ampius Balbus (active in Asia in 49 and in 48 BCE: see Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden", pp. 335-336 and MRR, II, p. 280) is mentioned in document no. 10 as the first in the list of the persons belonging to the advisory board of the consul Lentulus (11. 6-7). We notice that here we do not find the name of the tribe, which is given in document no. 10,1. 7. On his historical identification, see commentary ad locum. We notice that here, too, as in document no. 10, " A u j u o c ; was emended by Borghesi, while all the manuscripts give "Atctcio<;. The cognomen, too, is preserved in a corrupted fashion, BeXftoq (most manuscripts) or BdM,o<; (PF). For a possible explanation of this kind of corruption, see below, pp. 362-363. 1-2. TcpeoPetrcfic; corresponds to the Latin legatus (see H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974, pp. 7 8 - 7 9 , 153-155) and dvxiaxpdxrryoc; means propraetor (see Mason, Greek Terms, pp. 22, 105). 2-3. The opening is the usual one appearing in the letters written in Roman times. See above, p. 18. 2. Ephesus was the chief city of the province, where Lentulus' decision had been made (see above, document no. 10, commentary to 1. 3). 3. The recipients of Lentulus' exemption are defined here in a general way, unlike document no. 10,11. 1-3, where they are called "those Jews who are Roman citizens and observe Jewish rites and practice them in Ephesus". In document no. 13,11. 2 - 3 , and in document no. 16,11. 14-16, too, we find, respectively, "those Jews who are Roman citizens and appeared to me to have and to practice Jewish rites in Ephesus" and "those Jews who are Roman citizens and are accustomed to observe Jewish rites in Ephesus". As for the reason why we find here only a general mention of "the Jews in Asia", we may wonder if the expression may have been preserved in a corrupted way or if Ampis Balbus was unaware that the original exemption of Lentulus applied only to Jews who were also Roman citizens. 4 - 5 . These lines represent the main information contained in this document. Why Balbus interceded on behalf of the Jews, we do not know, but we may recall that in both the versions of Lentulus' decree (documents no. 10 and no. 13) Balbus appears first in the list of the persons belonging to the council of Lentulus. 6. Tcapd Oavvtoi) xov dvxioxpaxf|yo u. dvxioxpaxfVyou has been conjectured by Ernesti, while all the mauscripts give dp%ioxpaxf|you, which is clearly a mistake (on the possible origin of which, see below, pp. 362-363). On dvxioxpdxrryoq, which corresponds to the Latin propraetor, see Mason, Greek ,
165
11. Ant. XIV, 230
Terms (supra, commentary to 11. 1-2), pp. 106-107. In the Latin version we find tribunus plebis. Fannius may be identified with the C. Fannius who was praetor in 54 or 50 BCE and promagistrate in Asia in 49 and 48 BCE. The cistophori he issued in Asia, minted in Ephesus, Tralles, Laodicea and Apameia, give his filiation, C.f., and confirm that he was a pontifex (PONT) while the legend PR may stand for pr(o praetore). Cicero's mention of him in November 48 (Att. XI, 6, 6, November 27) between the names of Pompey and of Lentulus Spinther, who had died, suggests that he too had been reported dead. Perhaps the report was mistaken, since the legatus of 43 and 42 with the same name appears as an envoy along with persons of considerable seniority, and the legatus of 42 continues in Sextus Pompey's entourage as a person of rank. See Magie, Roman Rule, II, p. 1256, note 76, and Broughton, MRR, II, pp. 262, 277, 351, 365; III, 1986, p. 90. 7. Tiapd AEVKIOU 'Avxcoviou xofj avxixauiou. He may be identified with the L. Antonius, youngest brother of the later triumvir. In 50 BCE, we find him in Asia as quaestor of Q. Minucius Thermus, and Minucius'Thermus gave him the government of the province a short time afterwards, when he left the province in 49 BCE. Lucius Antonius then was quaestor pro praetore of the province in 49 BCE, and proquaestor after the arrival of C. Fannius as governor (see Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 402; Broughton, MRR, II, p. 260, and J.M. Roddaz, "Lucius Antonius", Historia, 37, 1988, pp. 325-326). On the term dvxixauiac;, which translaes proquaestor, see Mason, Greek Terms (supra, commentary to 11. 1-2), p. 108. 8. v\ia,q xe fto'uA.ouai. See above, document no. 1, commentary to 1. 8, and document no. 9, commentary to 11. 15-16. 8. The verb ^povxi^eiv often appears in Roman official documents. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 384. The letter opens with the name of the sender, his title, and then the name of the Greek city in dative, followed by xaipeiv. As we have noticed above, this is the usual opening of Roman official letters. From the formal point of view, the letter follows the common rules of composing letters. We also find, at the end, "it is my wish that you take care...", which finds numerous parallels in letters written by Roman magistrates to Greek cities in the same years. Two main pieces of evidence are found here. 1) Titus Ampius Balbus was probably the Roman officer approached by the Jews who requested the exemption and had the task of bringing their petition before Lentulus. 2) Conscription in Asia Minor lasted for a considerable span of time. Magie writes that "in the course of the nine and half months which elapsed between the time when Pompey, abandoning Italy, set sail across the Adriatic and the landing of Caesar in Epirus, the man-power of the East was mobilized to 1
1
S e e Sherk, RDGE, p. 3 7 1 .
166
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
2
defend the cause of its former organizer". Some time after Lentulus' decree was issued (how much exactly we cannot say), we find Ampius Balbus again helping the Jews to have Lentulus' decree enforced. And the fact that the recipients of the letter are the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus suggests that the Greeks had been active trying to force the Jews to enlist in the army (perhaps denouncing them to the Roman authorities?). It is difficult to establish when this happened. The letter mentions two Roman magistrates in office, Lucius Antonius and Fannius. The former is attested in Asia in 49, the latter both in 49 and in 48. It is also not excluded that soldiers were still recruited in Asia as late as the beginning of 48 B C E . We may also wonder whether at this time the conscriptions had become more general, including also persons who were not Roman citizens. In this case, perhaps all the Jews, and not only those who were Roman citizens (or Junian Latins?), could have claimed to be covered by Lentulus' exemption, and new decisions were necessary. This would explain why Balbus mentions the exemption of "the Jews of Asia" in a general way, without reference to their Roman citizenship. This, however, is an argumentum e silentio. Mendelssohn suggests that another decree was issued the day following Lentulus' decree, which extended the exemption to all Asian Jews, but such a decree has not be quoted anywhere nor mentioned by any source. Another possibility is that the exemption covered all of Asia, since the letter is addressed to Ephesus, which was the chief city of the province; in any case, all three versions of Lentulus' decree specify that the exemption only applied to those who were Roman citizens, as Graetz stresses. 3
4
5
6
We are still left with the problem of explaining how several Roman magistrates were within the same province at one time. A possible solution is suggested by Johnson et al.: "In the absence or because of the incapacity — reasons for each are unknown — of Fannius, who was appointed governor in Asia 5 0 - 4 9 B.C., Balbus, who may have been his representative but probably was serving under the consul Lentulus, who was then recruiting soldiers in Asia for Pompey, carried to Lentulus an appeal for the exemption of Jews from military service; later, on Fannius' return to his post, Balbus, desiring to regularize the matter, obtained the governor's concurrence with Lentulus' decision; still later, during another period of Fannius' absence from duty, perhaps in the interval between his departure from office and the arrival of his successor, although usually a retiring governor awaited the incoming governor, in the course of which the question about exemption had been
2
3
4
5
6
Roman Rule, I, p. 4 0 2 . See Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden", p. 340. See Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 4 0 2 . "Senati Consulta", p. 174. Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden", p. 339.
167
11. Ant. XIV, 230
reopened, perhaps through the recruiting officers' zealous activities, Balbus secured the adherence of Antonius, acting in place of Fannius, to the earlier decisions about exemption. Some such hypothesis must be assumed to account for the effort to obtain so many confirmations". 7
Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes,
pp. 8 5 - 8 6 .
12. Ant.
XIV, 2 3 1 - 2 3 2
4 9 or 4 8 B C E
This is a fragment of a Greek document (possibly a decree), containing a proposal made by the magistrates to the council of the Delians. It takes into account the decision of the Roman legate Marcus Piso concerning the exemption of Roman Jews from military service.
Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 8 7 - 1 8 8 ; B. Niese, "Bemerkungen iiber die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeol. B. XIII. XIV. XVI.", Hermes, 11, 1876, p. 4 8 3 , note 2; L. Mendelssohn, "Zu den Urkunden bei Josephus", RM, 32, 1877, p. 2 5 3 , note 1; H. Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden unter der Romerherrschaft", MGWJ, 30, 1886, pp. 3 4 0 - 3 4 1 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 107; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 158; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et la Judee, Paris 1928, p. 95; S.L. Guterman, Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome, London 1951, p. 110; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 1 2 7 - 8 , note 24; Chri'stiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 165; H.R. Moehring, "Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Josephus", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 896; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1 9 9 1 , p. 172.
231
232
(x. 14) ^ f ^ i a i i a AnXicov. en dp/ovxoi; Boicoxo\j UT|V6<; @apynA,icovo(; eiKooxfj, xpnfiaxiauoq oxpaxnycov. Mapicoc; rieiacov TcpeaPeuxfn; ev8n}icov ev xfj noXei fi|icov, 6 Kai xexayjievoq erii xfj*; axpaxoJioyiai;, 7upooKaA,ecduevo(; rpa<; Kai iKavoix; xcov TCOAXXCOV Tcpooexac;ev (va e i xivec; e i a i v lo\)8aioi 7toAtxai 'Pcoumcov xotixoiq fxnSeic; evo%A,fj rcepi axpaxeiaq, Sid xo xov amaxov Aot>Kiov Kopvr)A,iov Aevxtav 8eioi5ai|iovia<; eveKa aTcoA,e^DKevai xoix; 'Io^Saicut; xfjc; axpaxeiac;- 5i6 Tcei0ea9ai \)\xac, 8ei xcp Gxpaxnyco. 1.
Poicotou P. bioto Lat.
8.
A O I J K I O V om.
AM
Lat.
10. f)u,a<; coni. N i e s e . vpac, codd. Lat.
5
10
12. Ant. XIV,
169
231-232
Translation Decree of the Delians. In the archonship of Boeotus, on the twentieth day of the month of Thargelion, business introduced by the generals. The legate Marcus Piso, when resident in our city, having been placed in charge of the recruiting of soldiers, summoned us and a considerable number of citizens, and ordered that if there were any Jews who were Roman citizens, no one should bother them about military service, inasmuch as the consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus had exempted the Jews from military service in consideration of their religious scruples. Y o u must therefore obey the magistrate. 1
2
1
2
"response of the magistrates": Marcus, ed. Loeb, VII, p. 5 7 1 . "we": Marcus, ed. Loeb, VII, p. 5 7 2 .
Commentary 1. It is possible that the first two words, \|/£(|)io|i.a Ar|?iicov, do not belong to the document but are a kind of title added to the document either by Josephus or by his source. 1. £7t' dpxovxoc; PoicoxcO. From 166 BCE on, when, after the Roman defeat of Perseus, the Athenians were given control of Delos by the Roman senate, the eponymous archon was that of Athens. See R. Sherk, "The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities II", ZPE, 84, 1990, p. 270. On Athenian arehons, see R. Sherk, "The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities", ZPE, 83, 1990, pp. 275-277. 2. u/nvoq 0apynA,icovo<; EiKooxfj. The end of Delian independence in 166 BCE, when the Romans handed it over to the Athenians, marked also the end of a separate Delian calendar. After this date, the calendar in use was the Athenian one. See A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, Munchen 1972, pp. 57, 99. According to Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 571, note d), the month of Thargellion corresponds to May/June in the Roman calendar. (For a recent hypothesis on the position of this month in the calendar of Paros, see SEG XLII, 1992, no. 770). 2 - 3 . xpnuaxia|j.6<; axpaxnycov. Under Roman rule, the civic administration in the Greek cities was carried on, as before, by boards of magistrates. Boards of axpaxnyoi became especially frequent, particularly in the new 7t6^£i<;; the board was usually formed by five members. The title reveals a military origin; but clearly there was no opportunity for military adventures in Roman times. See A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 678. This passage is translated literally, "business introduced by the generals", by H.G. Liddel-R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1951, p. 2005, while Marcus offer a freer interpretation: "response of the magistrates" (Loeb ed., VII, p. 571), where
170
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
the word "response" probably refers to the pressure on the part of Marcus Piso (see below, p. 171). 3. The legate Marcus Piso is not M. Pupius Piso Frugi Calpurnianus, consul in 61 and praetor in 72 or 71 BCE, as suggested in MRR, II, p. 269. In MRR, III, 1986, p. 177, Broughton observes that the legatus at Delos under Pompey should rather be identified with the son, M. (Pupius) Piso, quaestor on an unknown date: he was Pompey's legate recruiting at Delos, and praetor in 44 BCE. It is difficult to know when exactly he was at Delos, and it does not help us to know that this M. (Calpurnius or Pupius) Piso, not mentioned in RE, appears among those who were eligible for a praetorian province in the assignment made in the senate meeting on November 28, 44 BCE (MRR, II, p. 319). 6. 7cpoaexac;£v. This verb is often used to express Roman decisions: see Paulus Fabius Maximus' letter probably written to the koinon of Greeks in Asia (RDGE no. 65, 9 BCE [?], 11. 28, 29) and Augustus' letter to the magistrates of Cnidos (RDGE no. 67,11. 11, 21). 7. On the meaning of the expression rcoHxai 'Pcouaicov, see document no. 10, commentary to 11. 1-2. 8. From Marcus Piso's mention of Lentulus' decision we understand not only that Lentulus' decision preceded that of Marcus Piso, but also that it constituted a legal precedent for a later Roman magistrate in office in loco, as we learn also from document no. 9. 9. On the expression 8eioi5ai(iovia<; EVEKCX, see document no. 10, commentary to 11. 3 - 4 . 10. It is not clear who has to obey the Roman magistrate, rpac; is an emendation by Niese, while all the manuscripts have x>\iac,. Between the two possibilities, considerable weight should be given to the fact that the Latin version, too, has the same reading as the Greek manuscripts. There seems therefore to be no necessity to emend the word. The advice to obey the Roman magistrate may well have been given by the generals to the council. In this context, v\xac, fits perfectly. 11. For the possibility of reading xoiq axpaxrryoic; instead of xco oxpaxrrycp see Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 188. From the first words of this document, \|/£(|)iGna Ar|A.icov, we expect to find a decree, but then we do not find what constitutes the main part of decrees, that is, the decision, which is usually introduced by the formula £86%9ai (or e8oc;£) xfj ftouAxj K a i xco Sfpcp. It therefore appears that our text may be regarded as a fragmentary quotation of a decree, which contains only the first part of it, namely, the proposal of a decree made by the magistrates in office. Whether this section was the one that Josephus (or his source) had in front of him, or this is the part — and the information — they wanted to give us, it is of course impossible to say. Also impossible to establish is the date, which
12. Ant. XIV,
171
231-232
may be 49, as Juster maintains, but also may be 48 BCE, as is suggested by Mendelssohn. As for its content, the fact that the Greek magistrates take into account Roman decisions is a common feature in documents written at the time. Sometimes, the Romans suggest not only the decision itself which should be made by the Greeks, but also the fact that it should take the form of a decree. A letter written by a Roman governor of Asia probably to the K O I V O V of the Greeks states "...since from no day both for public and for private advantage could each person receive luckier beginnings than from the one which has been lucky for everyone ... in order that it should be a beginning of honor for Augustus, and since it is difficult to return for his many great benefactions thanks -in equal measure,... it seems good to me that one and the same New Year's day for all the states should be the birthday of the most divine Caesar.... I think this (observance) will render the greatest service to the province. A decree by the Koinon of Asia will have to be written to include all his excellent qualities, in order that the plan formulated by us for the honor of Augustus may remain forever. I will ordain that the decree... be erected in the temple (of Roma and Augustus)" (RDGE no. 65 A = RGE no. 101 IV, about 9 BCE). The decree passed by the Greeks has also been preserved, which faithfully follows Roman instructions (RDGE no. 65 D = RGE no. 101 VI). Further examples have been kindly given to me per litteras by Prof. Rhodes, taken from his forthcoming work: "As early as 134/3 (?) a decree of the Delphic Amphictyony was to be valid 'unless there is anything contrary to the Romans' (F. Delphes III, II, 68, 1). Curium in Cyprus obtained the governor's permission to set up a statue to Nero at its own expense in AD 65/6, and to embellish a temple at its own expense, while giving the credit to Trajan in AD 114 (/. Kourion 84, III). In Ephesus a benefaction is approved by the governor and other Roman officials; the governor can be asked to approve a decree (about the celebration of the emperor's birthday), or to respect a festival as his predecessors had done; and he appoints a Xoyiaxr\q (financial officer) for the yepo-uoia (IK Ephesos 27; 21; 24; 25). The governor is asked to ratify the decision of Sidyma to set up a y e p o v c i a , and politely replies that this calls for praise rather than ratification (TAM II, 175). When the Lycian K O I V O V upgraded Bubon from two-vote to three-vote status, in the late second century AD, that decision was referred to and approved by the emperor (/. Bubon, 2)". 1
2
The fact that Marcus Piso made Lentulus' exemption operative at Delos too may be seen as an indication that the decision made by Lentulus may
1
Les Juifs, I, p. 146.
2
P.J. Rhodes, D . M . Lewis, The Decrees
of the Greek States, forthcoming at Oxford.
172
II. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
have applied to all Asian Jews and not only to those living at Ephesus, as suggested above. Surely his intervention on behalf of the Jews is remarkable, since from the administrative point of view the island Delos did not belong to Asia but to Achaia, and in spite of this Marcus Piso wanted to enlarge the extent of the exemption from military service in order to make it apply also to those Jews of Delos who may have been Roman citizens (or Junian Latins). 3
4
Ant. X I V , 2 3 2 Josephus' C l o s i n g C o m m e n t s
232
(x. 14) "Ouma 8e XOUTOK; K a i Eap8iavoi nepi fpcov e\|/r|())iaavTo.
Translation Similar to this was the decree concerning us which the people of Sardis passed.
Commentary A decree issued by the council of Sardis concerning the Jews is actually quoted by Josephus below (Ant. XIV, 259-261). It however does not mention exemption from military service, but other and different rights. Either Josephus was mistaken here or another decree existed, which Josephus, however, does not quote.
3
S e e Trebilco, Jewish Communities,
4
S e e Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden", pp. 3 4 0 - 1 .
p. 171.
13. Ant. X I V , 2 3 4 June 19, 4 9 B C E
This is a short version of the exemption from military service granted to Roman Ephesian Jews by the consul Lentulus. Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 7 3 - 1 8 4 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 107; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1 9 1 4 , pp. 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1 9 6 1 , p. 8 5 ; E. Mary Small w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 1 2 7 - 8 , note 24; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1 9 8 1 , p. 165; G. Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo c o n s o l e nel 4 9 a. C " , Romanitas-Christianitas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der romischen Kaiserzeit. Johannes Straub zum 70, ed. G. Wirth, K.H. Schwarte, J. Heinrichs, B e r l i n - N e w York 1 9 8 2 , pp. 1 5 4 - 1 6 3 .
234
(x. 16) AeuKioq AevxXoq vnaxoq Xeyev noXixaq 'Pcojiaicov 'IovSaiout;, o'ixivec; u.oi iepa e^eiv Kai rcoieiv 'Iou8a'iKa ev E§£G(p e 8 6 K O \ ) V , 8eiai8ai|iovia<; eveKa aneXvaa. xovxo eyevexo rcpo 8c68eKa Ka?iav8cov KomvxiAicov.
5
1. A o t j k i o i ; P F A M .
4. SeKaipicov F L A M .
5. 'OKTCOppicov KornvnAicov F. 'OKxcoPpicov L A M . Iuliarum Lat.
Translation Lucius Lentulus, consul, declares: In consideration of religious scruples I have released those Jews who are Roman citizens and appeared to me to have and to practice Jewish rites at Ephesus. Dated the twelfth day before the Kalends of July. Commentary 1. Concerning the beginning of this document, Aet>Kio<; Aevxtax;... ^eyei, which is very similar if not identical to that appearing in document no. 10,
174
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
and on the historical identification of Lucius Lentulus, see above, document no. 10, commentary to 1. 1 and pp. 157-158. 1. On the meaning to give to the term TIOXIXQLX, here, see document no. 10, commentary to 11. 1-2. 2. The terminology used to denote the Jews here is slightly different from that appearing in document no. 10, 11. 2 - 3 . In particular, we note o'ixivet; urn... eSoicouv which, if it is not taken as a routine expression, may reveal some uncertainty in establishing the criteria for the identification of the Jews. 3. The expression 8eici8ai|j,ovia<; eveice appears also in document no. 10. See commentary to 11. 3 - 4 . 4. The text does not say from what Lentulus freed the Jews. 4. xoDxo Eyevexo does not appear in document no. 10, where the date follows immediately the verb aneXvaa. 4 - 5 . The text given by Niese and Marcus has the reading rcpo SooSeKCt KaA,av8cov KomvxiAicov, which corresponds to May 21 according to Juster (Les Juifs, p. 144, note 8), June 19 according to Marcus and Saulnier (respectively, Loeb ed., VII, p. 573, note f, and "Lois romaines", p. 196), June 20 according to Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 85, and June 19 or 20 according to Smallwood (The Jews, p. 127, note 24). As for the number of the day, Niese and Marcus give S C O S E K C X , perhaps because this is the date which appears in document no. 10. Four manuscripts, however, (FLAM) give SeKaxpicov, namely, the thirteen day before the Kalends. As for the month, we also find OicxcoPpicov KomvxiAicov (F) and 'Oicxofiptcov (LAM). For a possible explanation of this double date, see below, p. 175. At first glance, this appears to be a short version of Lentulus' exemption of Roman Jews living at Ephesus from military service preserved in document no. 10, lacking the list of witnesses. If we examine the terminology of the two texts, however, we see that they are slightly different, as we see from the different ways of defining the Jews (see commentary to 11. 2-3). Moreover, our text does not say from what Lentulus freed the Jews, does not mention the place where the decision of Lentulus was taken (rcpo xo\) pf|uaxo<;: document no. 10, 1. 3) and does not give any indication of the year, unlike what happens in document no. 10, 11. 5-6. Between Lentulus' decision and the date, our text also adds the words xoi3xo e y e v e x o , which do not appear in document no. 10. It therefore appears that our document is not a shorter version of document no. 10, but an independent text. A unique original text surely existed, since the basic information is the same in the two texts, but it appears that it underwent different changes in its tradition. As for the date, the Latin version gives the month of July while the Greek manuscripts give October (LAM) and one of them both July and October (F). A possible reason for this double date is offered by Forni,
13. Ant. XIV,
234
175
who observes: "Tuttavia, se si considera che le due date erano separate da 88 giorni secondo il calendario pre-giuliano e da 91 secondo il calendario giuliano, e nell'attuazione della riforma del calendario sarebbero stati suppliti nel 46 a.C. complessivamente 90 giorni, stando alia versione piu diffusa nelle fonti letterarie e difesa ancora di recente dalla critica moderna, il 18 settembre sarebbe la data del decreto di Lentulo secondo il calendario pre-cesareo, ritenuta corrispondente al 19 giugno del calendario in vigore dopo la riforma: infatti fra le date 19 giugno e 18 settembre del calendario giuliano si contano esattamente 90 giorni (cioe gg. 11 di giugno + 31 di luglio + 31 di agosto + 1 7 di settembre = gg. 90), proprio quanti sarebbero stati i giorni integrati con la riforma nel 46 a.C; per cui l'espressione congiunta 'OKxcofJpicov KomvxiAitov, che compare in alcuni mss., compendierebbe la data 18 settembre del documento secondo il calendario civile vigente nel 49 a . C , e la data 19 giugno ricavata dall'equazione approssimativa all'anno solare. Una corrispodnenza cosi singolare non pub essere casuale.... Nell'ottica del calendario riformato avrebbe potuto stupire che il provvedimento di Lentulo, relativo all'esenzione di cittadini romani dal servizio militare, fosse stato preso quasi alle porte dell'autunno, quando di solito si interrompevano le operazioni di guerra e gli eserciti venivano sciolti o si disponevano a svernare, e non all'inizio della buona stagione, quando invece si procedeva alia formazione delle legioni; e stupire inoltre che, sotto l'incalzare della guerra civile e di fronte alia rapidita con cui si muoveva Cesare, ci si attardasse da parte pompeiana ad arruolare uomini ancora sul finire dell'anno. Forse lo stesso storiografo che avrebbe messo insieme la documentazione relativa ai privilegi concessi ai Giudei,... avvedendosi che si trovava ancora in un momento pompeiano, percio precedente la riforma del calendario, potrebbe avere introdotto nel suo testo l'equazione Ttpo S C O S E K O : KaA,cxv5cov 'OicxcoPpitov KouivxiAicov (con l'acribico conguaglio al mese Quintilis, non ancora Iulius), della quale i manoscritti avrebbero ritenuto ambedue le datazioni o scelto l'una o l'altra, mentre la seconda datazione con la locuzione aggiornata delle Kalendae Iuliae avrebbe inserito la tradizione manoscritta della traduzione latina del testo di Giuseppe Flavio, che si fa risalire al VI secolo all'incirca. Per ragione che scaturisce dalle considerazioni teste fatte, e da escludere che le lezioni 'OKxco[3pitov e K O D I V X I A I C O V siano reciproche varianti imputabili alia tradizione manoscritta, e tanto meno KomvxiAicov che sarebbe lectio difficilior". 1
1
Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", pp. 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 .
14. Ant. X I V , 2 3 5 49 BCE
Letter written by Lucius Antonius, son of Marcus, proquaestor and propraetor, to the magistrates, council and people of Sardis, confirming to the Jews the right to have an association of their own in accordance with their native laws and a place of their own in which to decide their affairs and controversies with one another.
Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 8 5 - 1 8 6 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 107; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I'emoire romain, I, Paris 1912, p. 145; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et laJudee, Paris 1928, p. 9 4 ; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, Princeton 1950, p. 1256, note 76; S.L. Guterman, Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome, London 1951, pp. 1 1 0 - 1 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 85; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980, p. 3 7 5 ; S. Applebaum, "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora", CRJNT, I, p. 4 4 2 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 139; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 165; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, pp. 1 1 8 - 1 2 0 ; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, p. 170; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, pp. 2 6 9 , 2 7 1 .
235
(x. 17) A O I J K I O C ; 'Avxcovioc; MdpKOt) vibq dvxixauiaq Kai avxioxpaxriyof; ZapSiavcov apxcuai (3ou?ifj 8r||icp xaipeiv. 'IouSaioi rcoAIxai fiuexepoi 7ipooeA,66vxe<; [ioi erceSei^av aijxoix; cruvoSov e%eiv i8iav Kaxd xoix; naxpiout; voficut; an ap%f\q Kai xorcov i5iov, ev cp xd xe 7ipaY|iaxa Kai xaq npbq a7Ckr\ko\)q avxi^oyiaq Kpivo\)oi, xovxb xe aixr)oa1-2. ctvxixaueiat; P. 3. ij|j.exepoi P. 4. eavxcuq AM.
5
14. Ant. XIV,
Lievoic; i v '
£t;fj
7ioi£iv
235
111
avxoic; xripfjom Kai £mxp£\|/ai
EKptva. 8. o n J T O f < ; T t o i e l v tr. A M . 8. e n i o x p e v i / a i P.
Translation Lucius Antonius, son of Marcus, proquaestor and propraetor, to the magistrates, council and people of Sardis, greeting. Jewish citizens of ours have come to me and pointed out that from the earliest times they have had an association of their own in accordance with their native laws and a place of their own, in which they decide their affairs and controversies with one another; and upon their request that it be permitted them to do these things, I decided that they might be maintained, and permitted them so to do.
Commentary 1. Lucius Antonius was proquaestor and propraetor in Asia. For the rendering in Greek of these Roman titles, see H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974, pp. 2 2 - 2 3 , 105, 108. He was left in command there by Minucius Thermus when the latter returned to Rome in 49 BCE, and remained in Asia for at least two years (see above, document no. 11, commentary to 1. 7). Magie, Roman Rule, II, p. 1256, note 76, observes that two inscriptions from Pergamum call him rcdxpcov Kai ocoxrip, and mention his titles xauiac; Kai avxioxpaxrvyoc; (IGRR IV, no. 400 and perhaps IGRR IV, no. 1346). 2-3. The opening is the usual one, with the name of the sender in nominative, that of the recipient in dative, followed by %aip£iv. On the formal features of Roman letters, see above, p. 18. 3-4. If the original reading is rifiexepoi, as it appears in most manuscripts, then the Jews who had the task of bringing their requests to the Roman governor were also Roman citizens. Relying on this inference, Marcus sees a connection between this document and those which precede it: "This document seems to be an extension of the rights granted to the Jews of Ephesus by Lucius Lentulus, to include general religious toleration" (Loeb ed., VII, p. 573, note g. See also Juster, Les Juifs, I, p. 145). If the envoys sent to Antonius were Roman citizens, Vermes and Millar suggest that "this means that in spite of their special position as Roman citizens they abstain from seeking justice before the Roman assizes, or conventus. As the expression cruvo8o<; occurs in opposition to this conventus, no certain conclusion can be drawn from the statement about the way in which the community designated i t s e l f (The History, I, p. 90). Whether the term 7toAixai indicates real citizenship, however, is doubtful (see above, pp. 2 7 - 3 0 and document no. 10, commentary
178
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
to 11. 1-2). Guterman translates: "those Jews that are our fellow citizens (of Rome)" (S.L. Guterman, Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome, London 1951, p. 111). We should not forget, however, that one of the Greek manuscripts, the Codex Parisinus, gives vuexepoi instead of fiuexepoi, and that the same expression, "a citizen of yours came to me...", also appears in another letter written by a Roman official to the magistrates of Miletus in the same years (document no. 18, 1. 3). If T J f i e x e p o i was the original reading (as Applebaum maintains: see "The Legal Status", p. 442), then the Jews mentioned here were citizens not of Rome but of Sardis. See Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 120, note 52; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 169, and Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 271, note 31. This obviously does not mean that they were "real" citizens, namely, citizens of the noXiq of Sardis. As we have seen above, the term 7toA,VTai was used also with non-technical meanings (see above, pp. 2 7 - 3 0 , and document no. 9, commentary to 1. 7). Here, it probably means simply "inhabitants". 4. cruvoSov... I8iav. In connection with Greek cult-associations, avvoSoq means "a festive meeting of the association" and "an association itself. See Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 90. On the different terms used to designate the Jewish community, see above, document no. 7, commentary to 1. 17. According to Trebilco, the use of otivoSoc; indicates that the Jews had their own jurisdiction, and that the Jewish community at Sardis was organized as a noXixev^ia (Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 170). 5. an dp%fj<;. The expression dp%fj<; is well attested in Roman documents. See RDGE nos. 1 A, 189 BCE, 1. 6; 1 B, 1. 7; 31, 4 BCE, 1. 113 (en dp%fic;). 6. Kraabel interprets the expression T O T C O V ( 8 I O V as referring to the Jews' synagogue (for which meaning he quotes M. Hengel, "Die Synagogeinschrift von Stobi", ZNW, 57, 1966, p. 173A): "This was possibly a section of a public building, the religious and community center of the Jews, the predecessor of the building built later" (T. Kraabel, "The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 484). The same view is found in Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 85. On the other hand, Smallwood suggests the possibility that this T07io<; was a civic meeting-place for transacting the secular business of the 7coA,it£\)(ia (The Jews, p. 139, note 73). On the various meanings of xonoq in the Greek inscriptions found in Egypt, see E. Bernand, "Tonoq dans les inscriptions grecques d'Egypte", ZPE, 98, 1993, pp. 103-110. As for Roman support, it can not be seen as a proof of special consideration for Jewish needs. Similar attitudes concerning other peoples are widely attested. In imperial times, for example, an edict sent by Hadrian to a guild of athletes states: "Yes, a place where you wish I shall order to be given to you and a building to house your archives" (GC no. 86,11. 7-8).
14. Ant. XIV,
179
235
6-7. On the right of jurisdiction of the Jews concerning their own members, see Schurer, The History, III, 1, pp. 118-119 and below, pp. 4 3 3 - 4 3 5 . 8-9. The verb Kpivco was often used by Roman magistrates. See the numerous examples quoted in Sherk, RDGE, p. 377. The verbs Tnpeco and 87iixpeTcco, too, are well attested in official Roman documents. For rnpeco, see RDGE nos. 18,1. 5; 70,1. 5 and for £Tcup£Tcco nos. 31,1. 141; 49,1. 8; 59,1. 2. The Jews of Sardis claim here that they enjoyed the right "to have ... an association of their own" and "a place of their own in which they decide their affairs and controversies with one another from the earliest time" (11. 3-7). If Sardis may be identified with the Sepharad mentioned in Obadiah 20, the Jewish community there would go back to the time of the Persian Empire. That the Jews enjoyed the right of association and internal jurisdiction in Hellenistic times is surely possible, in view of their right "to live according to their ancestral laws" which they had had since Persian times. As for the Romans, it is well known that the Roman magistrates usually did not innovate or change, but limited themselves to confirm existing legal situations. As Grant observes, "the Romans tolerated the Jews because they found them tolerated already". Often, however, existing situations were contested by the neighbors of the Jews. In our document, the fact that the Jews applied to the local Roman governor requesting confirmation of their rights and the fact that Antonius' letter is addressed to the magistrates, council and people of Sardis implies that the Jews' rights had been questioned by the Sardian Greeks. The text does not explictly state that the Greeks had prevented, or tried to prevent, the Jews from exercising these rights, but this is suggested by the similarity of the content to that of other documents quoted by Josephus. Similar episodes occurred also at Delos, Miletus, Laodicea, Halicarnassus and Ephesus (nos. 7, 17-21). 1
2
3
The local Roman magistrates sided with the Jews, at least in the cases mentioned in these documents. Possibly (perhaps presumably?) this did not happen always, but the Jews, it is obvious, had no interest in preserving documents attesting Roman decisions in favor of the Greeks. The main information provided by this letter is the mention of the Jews' right to meet and "to decide their own affairs and controversies with one another", which
1
A Jewish immigration in Lydia and Phrygia in Hellenistic times is mentioned in Ant. XII, 1 4 7 - 1 5 3 and in C.Ap., II, 39. See also Lea Roth-Gerson, "The Jews in A s i a Minor" (Hebr.), The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World, ed. M. Stern, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 7 7 - 1 0 0 , and the bibliography quoted in the notes on pp. 304—311. See below, pp. 4 0 9 - 4 1 1 . M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, London 1973, pp. 5 9 - 6 0 . 2
3
180
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
surely constituted a basic right in the everyday life of the Jews, and is mentioned explicitly only here and in document no. 20, 11. 8 - 1 0 . Antonius' letter may have been written in 50 or in 49, when he is attested in loco (see above, commentary to 1. 1). Since Lentulus' decree concerning the Jews was issued in 49, however, 49 BCE is considered a more probable date by most scholars. This is the first instance, chronologically speaking, of a Roman official decision granting the Jews both the right to associate and to enjoy an autonomous internal jurisdiction. This suggests that Caesar is not making a new decision when he states in 47 BCE: "and if... any question shall arise concerning the Jews' manner of life, it is my pleasure that the decision shall rest with them" (document no. 1, 11. 28-30). As for the view that Lucius Antonius transmitted Lentulus' decree exempting Roman Jews from military service together with his letter to the council of Sardis, it remains speculation. Antonius does not mention Lentulus' decree nor refer to its content. Josephus, it is true, after quoting the document from Delos concerning the exemption of the Roman Jews from military service (document no. 12), goes on to say that "similar to this was the decree concerning us which the people of Sardis passed" (Ant. XIV, 232). No decree from Sardis, however, is extant which mentions Jews' exemption from military service, and it is impossible to know whether Josephus had such a decree and simply neglected to quote it, or whether he did not remember well the content of the decree from Sardis which he does quote below (document no. 20). 4
5
6
7
Since our document and the decree issued by Sardis quoted in document no. 20 mention similar rights requested (and apparently obtained) by the Jews, the possibility has been suggested that the Greek decree was issued in response to Roman pressure, namely, as a consequence of Antonius' letter. This, however, has been doubted already by Mendelssohn. In fact, the rights referred to in the two documents are not exactly the same. Antonius' letter mentions the right to have "an association of their own in accordance with their native laws and a place of their own in which they decide their affairs and controversies with one another" (11. 4-7), while in the Greek decree issued by the council of Sardis we find the permission "to come together on stated days to do those things which are in accordance with their laws, and 8
9
4
A s for its real content in practice, however, different opinions are found in modern scholarship. See below, pp. 432^1-35. See Juster, Les Juifs, p. 145; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 139; Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 196 and Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 120. S e e Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 85. S e e also Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 165. See Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 85. "Senati Consulta", p. 186. 5
6
7
8
9
14. Ant. XIV,
235
181
also that a place shall be set apart by the magistrates for them to build and to inhabit" (document no. 20, 11. 14-19). Against a possible link between the two documents is also the fact that no. 20 does not mention a Roman letter as the reason why the decree was passed, but the fact that the Jews "have come before the senate... and have pleaded that..." (11. 5-9). Moreover, the text quoted in document no. 20 mentions the fact that the Jews' "laws and freedom have been restored to them by the Roman senate and people" (11. 7-8), and as far as we know the first extant senatus consultum concerning the Jews was issued in 47 BCE, two years after Antonius' letter was written. It seems therefore that we cannot establish a link between the two documents.
15. Ant. X I V , 2 3 6 - 2 3 7 After June 4 9 B C E
This is apparently a declaration made by Roman persons otherwise unattested concerning the background of Lentulus' exemption of Ephesian Roman Jews from military service.
Bibliography F. Ritschl, "Epimetrum zu Bd. XXVIII p. 5 8 6 - 6 1 4 : Romische Senatusconsulte bei Josephus", RM, 2 9 , 1874, p. 3 4 4 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 7 3 - 1 8 4 ; H. Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden unter der Romerherrschaft", MGWJ, 3 0 , 1 8 8 6 , pp. 3 3 6 - 3 3 8 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 143; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 8 8 , 1981, pp. 1 6 5 - 6 ; L. Troiani, "The J i o ^ i x e i a o f Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, pp. 14, 18.
236
(x. 18) MapKoq YlonXwq Lrco'upio'i) m o t ; Kai MapKoq MdpKOv Kai YlonXiov vibe, A O V K I O C ; Xey o i K J i v AEVTACO xcp dvGimdxcp 7r.pooe?i66vx£<; eSi8d^a|a.£v auxov
237
7cepi
cov AoaiBeoc; K ? i e o 7 c a x p i 8 o \ )
' AXz^avSpevq Xoyovq ETtovnaaxo, dracoc; noXixac, 'Pcoumcov 'Iot>8aiou<; iepd 'Io\)8atKd rcoieiv eicoGoxac;, dv auxco ^avfj, 5£iaiSai|Lioviac; ev£Ka anoXvcT}- Kai aneXvoe npb ScoSem KaX,av8cov KomvxiAicov. 1. Gronovius. Zmpioi) P. rioupioi) FLAM. Publii Lat. 2. Marcus Lucius Marci Publii filius Lat. Kai nonXiov noimAloiJ A M .
Fl. Kai
2.
AOTJKIOC; FAM.
3. 3. 4. 6. 7. 7. 7.
xcp dvGujtdtTCp PLAM. 7ipooeX,06vT8i; Xeyovaiv P. Acoaieeoq A . IouSaiouq 7ioirior| FLAM. anokvaei L. aneXvoe Hudson, dimisit Lat. anoXvam P. aneXvaa FLAM. 5eKaxpicov FLAM. OKtcoPpioi) KomvnAico F. 'OKxcoPpicov KirivtiAico L A M . Julias Lat.
A E V K I O C ; L.
5
15. Ant. XIV,
236-237
183
Translation Marcus Publius, son of Spurius, Marcus, son of Marcus, and Lucius, son of Publius, declared: We have gone to the proconsul Lentulus and informed him of the statement made by Dositheus, son of Cleopatrides, the Alexandrian, to the effect that, if it seemed proper to him, in consideration of their religious scruples he should exempt from military service those Jews who are Roman citizens and are accustomed to practise Jewish rites. And he did exempt them on the twelfth day before the Kalends of July.
Commentary 1. £7to\)piou is an emendation by Gronovius. The Codex Parisinus gives Empiou and the other manuscripts give ITo'upio'u. 2. Niese's reading follows the Latin version "Marcus Lucius Marcii Publii filius", relying on the fact that the name usually precedes, and does not follow, the name of the father. Moreover, we should observe that P does not give Kai. Niese reads therefore two names here (see also Juster, Les Juifs, p. 143, note 4) and not three, as Marcus suggests, relying on FL Kai YlonXiov and AM Kai noimAAoi). (Mendelssohn saw here four names: "Senati Consulta", p. 177). 2 - 3 . In republican times, Xeyei, or Xeyovoiv, usually introduce a decree issued by a Roman magistrate. But a more general, non-technical use of the verb is also attested. See below, p. 185. 3. Lentulus is given the title of proconsul in PL AM, and this is a mistake, since Lentulus was consul and not proconsul (see above, document no. 10, commentary to 1. 1). For the possible reasons responsible for this kind of mistake, see below, pp. 362-366. 4 - 5 . Dositheos, son of Cleopatrides, of Alexandria, is otherwise unattested. Since he is said to have had the task of requesting Lentulus to exempt Roman Ephesian Jews from military service, scholars have supposed that he was a Jew himself, which is possible, since the name Dositheos is well attested among Egyptian Jews (see CPJ, I, p. 29; III, Appendix II, pp. 173-174). The fact that Marcus Publius and Marcus Lucius proclaim that they have gone to Lentulus and brought to him the statement of Dositheos may imply that Dositheos had some authority and influence over Lentulus' decision, and scholars have wondered whether he may have been a soldier serving in the Roman army, or have served in a public office. Graetz maintains that Dositheos was an orator, who "gave a long speech on behalf of the Ionian Jews before the Roman magistrates, claiming that the Jews were entitled to exemption from military service inasmuch as they were priests, since they individually observe their sacred laws" (Gratz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden" pp. 336, 337-338, note 1).
184
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
5 . Xoyovq E T C o v n a a T O . This expression appears thirty eight times in Roman official documents. See the list of the documents in Sherk, RDGE, p. 3 7 8 . 5 . On the expression 7 r o ^ i x a c ; Pcojiaicov, see document no. 1 0 , commentary to 11. 1 - 2 . 6 . Lepd 'IcudaiKct TUOIEIV eicoGoxac;. The expression is similar but not identical to those expressing the same concept in documents nos. 1 0 , 11. 2 - 3 , and 1 3 , 11. 2 - 3 . The closest resemblance is with document no. 1 6 , 11. 1 5 - 1 6 . The meaning of the Greek word iepd was not clear to the Latin translator, who translated it once "templa" and once "sacraria". See Graetz, "Die Stellung der Kleinasiatischen Juden", p. 3 3 7 note 1. 7 . The expression dv amdb §avr\ (or e d v amco [ a i j i o i q ] ^ a i v e x a i , which translates the Latin si ei videretur, often appears in Roman official documents. See for example RDGE nos. 1 8 , 1. 1 0 4 ; 2 0 E, 1. 5 ; 2 2 , 11. 8 , 2 4 , 2 9 ; 2 6 B, 1. 2 4 ; 2 6 C, 11. 6 , 2 2 . See Sherk, RDGE, p. 1 5 . 7 . On the expression 8£iaiScxi|j,oviac"; E V E K C X , see document no. 1 0 , commentary to 11. 3 - 4 . 8. aneXvce. See document no. 1 0 , commentary to 1. 4 . 8 . Here, too, as in document no. 1 3 , 1. 4 , FLAM give S E K C X T P I C O V instead of 8 C 6 8 E K O : . Ritschl suggests we should read SEKatpicov ("Epimetrum", p. 3 4 4 ) while the reading 8c68£Ka is preferred both by Niese and by Marcus, who rely on P and on the Latin version. As for the month, FLAM give both readings ('OKTo(3picp KowriAico F and 'OKxcoPpicov KmvTiAicp LAM), while the Latin version gives "Iulias", as it happens in document no. 13,11. 4 - 5 . For an explanation of this double date, see above, document no. 1 3 , pp. 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 .
The Roman names which appear at the beginning of this text have been preserved in a confused fashion in the manuscripts, and no historical identification is possible. Marcus observes: "as Lucius and Publius are not gentilicia we should have to assume a corruption in the latter reading, as well as in the name 'Marcus Publius, son of Spurius'. Possibly, however, as Gronovius suggests ap. Hudson-Havercamp, these men were Roman plebeians and converts to Judaism; in that case, the names Marcus Publius, Marcus Lucius might be genuine". The document recalls the historical background of Lentulus' exemption of Roman Ephesian Jews from military service. Three stages may be discerned. One, the decision to request the exemption by Dositheos son of Cleopatrides; two, the intervention of unknown Roman persons, who brought the request before Lentulus; three, Lentulus' decision. An additional stage may be supposed at the very beginning, namely, the very idea of the request, which was surely conceived by the local Jews themselves. Mendelssohn suggests that a original document may have existed, where we would read: 7C£pi 1
1
L o e b ed., VII, p. 5 7 5 , note e.
15. Ant. XIV,
185
236-237
cov Xoyovq e7ioif|aavxo MapKoq... Ylon'kwc, K X E . ornoq noXixac, TcoLiaicov 'IouSaiotx;... SeioiSaiuoviat; E V E K C X oxpaxEiac; anoXvov), E T C E I S T I K X E . This does not contradict what we learn from document no. 11, namely, that it was the legate and propraetor Titus Ampius Balbus who asked Lentulus to exempt the Jews from military service. The two pieces of evidence are not mutually exclusive. Marcus Publius and Marcus Lucius may not have applied to Lentulus directly, but asked the mediation of Ampius Balbus. This is clearly only speculation, and of course other scenarios are possible too. It is difficult to define the formal nature of this document. The verb A,£Youai which appears on 11. 2 - 3 would suggest that this is a decree, and this is the opinion n^aintained by Viereck. In this case, however, we do not understand why the two persons who issue it are called simply by their names, without the specification of their titles. (Should we suppose that their official titles were disregarded by the person who copied the document?) Moreover, if it is a decree, we do not understand its meaning, since decrees always contain orders and provisions, and none is found here. We should therefore suppose that this is only a fragmentary quotation of a longer document which originally contained additional information. Xeyovoi, however, also appears in official Roman documents with a non-technical meaning. In the letter of P. Cornelius Blasion to Corcyra (RDGE no. 4, between 175 and 160 BCE, 1. 4), we find it along with %aip£iv (which makes it clear that this is a letter and not a decree). In his letter written to Dyme, too, Q. Fabius Maximus proclaims ?i£yco immediately after the salutation (RDGE no. 43, 115 BCE ?, 1. 6), which may suggest that the decree is somehow incorporated in a letter. 2
3
4
That is why it is not impossible that this was originally a letter sent to the Jews, in which the addressee and the date were not preserved, as Juster suggests following Mendelssohn. As for the date, since this document mentions Lentulus' exemption of the Jews from military service, it was obviously written at a time later than June 49 BCE. 5
2
3
4
5
Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 179. See above, p. 16. Sermo graecus, p. 107. Les Juifs, p. 143, note 5.
16. Ant. X I V , 2 3 7 - 2 4 0 49 BCE
This is the longest extant version of the decree issued by the consul Lucius Cornelius P.f.-n. Lentulus Crus concerning the exemption of the Jewish Roman citizens living at Ephesus from military service.
Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 1 7 3 - 1 8 4 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Zu den Urkunden bei Josephus", RM, 3 2 , 1877, p. 2 5 3 , note 1; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 ; J. Suolahti, "The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus in the Year 4 9 B.C.", Arktos, 2, 1958, pp. 1 5 2 - 6 3 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1 9 6 1 , p. 85; E. Mary Small wood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 127; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 1 6 4 - 1 6 5 ; G. Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo console nel 4 9 a. C " , Romanitas-Christianitas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der romischen Kaiserzeit. Johannes Straub zum 70, ed. G. Wirth, K.H. Schwarte, J. Heinrichs, B e r l i n - N e w York 1982, pp. 1 5 4 - 1 6 3 ; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 113; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, pp. 1 6 - 1 7 ; L. Troiani, "The TtoXixeia of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, p. 14; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 7 0 .
238
(x. 19) AevKicp A E V T A C O Taico MapiceAAcp imdxoiq. 7 c a p f j o a v Tixoc; " A U T U O C ; Tixou vibe, BaX^oq Opaxia npeo^E\)xr\q, Tixoc; Toyyioc; Kpoaxouiva, Koivxoc; Paiaioc; Ko'i'vxox), Tixoc; IlouTrnioc; Tixov vibq Kopvr|?iia Aoyyivoc;, Vaioq ZepomXiot; rot'iou Triprixiva BpcxK^oc; %iA,iapxoc;, YlonXwq KAo-uaioc; 1. 2. 2. 4.
Aevxpco P. "Aumoq Borghesi. "Anjiioq codd. Bd^yoi; L. 'Paiaioq P L A M . Kaiaioc; ex §229 coni. Niese. Mendelssohn. 4. nouxnioq FL. rir|ioc; rell.
'PaiKioq
5
16. Ant. XIV,
rioTcAiou vibq OuExcopia F&XXoq, Tdioc; Temioq ra'i'ou AijiiAia x ^ PX ^ £ E < ; X O < ; 'AxiAioc; £ E < ; X O \ ) vioq AiuiAia Seppavoc;, Tdioc; nou7r.f|io<; ra't'oi) vioq ZaPaxiva, Tixoc; "Aumoc; Tixov Mevav5po<;, UonXioq ££pomAao<; norcAiou uioc; Zxpdpcov, A E U KIOC; n d K K i o c ; A E D K I O D KoAAiva Komxcov, AvXoq Oovpioc; AvXov vioq Tepxioc;, "Annnoc; Mnvdc;. E T C ! xouxcov 6 A E V X ? i o c ; S6yu.a E C ^ E G E X O . noXixaq Tcofiaicov 'IouSaiouc;, o'ixivEc; i £ p d ' I o v S a ' i i c d 7 C O I E I V EicoGaaiv E V E ^ E O C O , 7ip6 xofj prpaxoc; 8£ioi8aiLioviac; £,VEKO; aneXvca. i
239
240
187
237-240
7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14.
a
0
Ouetcopla coni. Gronovius. Etcopia coni. Niese. P. 'Epcopia rell. Z e k o t o c ; FLA. Z e ^ a T o q Niese. 'AuAAiac; P. Alulae; F. A i c o u i a c ; L A M . "Aurcioq Mendelssohn. "Aratioq codd. Aiitax; Gronov. A M a o c ; codd. riav)A.o\) F L A M . e^fjveyicev L A . e^fjveyice F A M .
10
15
Eycopeia
Translation In the consulship of Lucius Lentulus and Gaius Marcellus. Present were the legate Titus Ampius Balbus, son of Titus, of the Horatian tribe, Titus Tongius of the Crustuminian tribe, Quintus Raesius , son of Quintus, Titus Pompeius Longinus, son of Titus, of the Cornelian tribe, the military tribune Gaius Servilius Bracchus, son of Gaius, of the Teretine tribe, Publius Clusius Gallus, son of Publius, of the Veturian tribe, the military tribune Gaius Teutius, son of Gaius, of the Aemilian tribe, Sextus Atilius Serranus, son of Sextus, of the Aemilian tribe, Gaius Pompeius, son of Gaius, of the Sabatine tribe, Titus Ampius Menander, son of Titus, Publius Servilius Strabo, son of Publius, Lucius Paccius Capito, son of Lucius, of the Colline tribe, Aulus Furius Tertius, son of Aulus, Appius Menas. In their presence Lentulus announced the following decree. In consideration of religious scruples I have released before the tribunal those Jews who are Roman citizens and are accustomed to observe Jewish rites in Ephesus. 1
1
"Caesius": Marcus, L o e b ed., VII, p. 5 7 7 .
Commentary 1. In official Roman documents, the names of the consuls appear at the beginning and indicate the year in which the decree is passed. This is therefore the place where we expect it to appear, unlike what happens in document no. 10, where it is given after the main information of the decree.
188
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Lucius Cornelius P.f.-n. Lentulus Cms and C. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus were consuls in 49 BCE. See above, document no. 10, commentary to 11. 1, 5-6. 2.7capfiaav. See above, document no. 10, commentary to 1. 6. 2 - 3 . Tixoc; "Aujuoq Tixou vibq B&Xfioq 'Opaxia npec^evxy\q. His is one of the few names which is preserved exactly in the same way here and in document no. 10. For his political career, see above, document no. 10, commentary to 11. 6-7. 3. Tixoc; T6yyio<; Kpoaxouiva. Here we do not find the name of his father, which appears in document no. 10. See above, commentary to document no. 10, 11. 7 - 8 . Forni suggests that this omission may be due to a mechanical mistake (Forni, "Intorno al Consilium", p. 160). 4. Kotvxoc; 'Paiaio<; Koivxcu. Kaioux; is an emendation proposed by Niese, who relies on the fact that in document no. 10,11. 8 - 9 , two manuscripts preserve this form of the name (Kdoioc; F and Kdaaioq L). On the other hand, we should notice that AM give Paioioq. As for our text, all the manuscripts give Paiaioi;. An emendation, therefore, does not seem necessary. 4 - 5 . Tixoq no|i7r,f|io<; Ttxou vibq Kopvr|Ma Aoyytvoi;. For his historical identification, see above, document no. 10, commentary to 1. 9. 5 - 6 . Tdioi; EepomAioc; ra't'oi) Tnpr|xiva BpaK^oq %i?iiapxo<;. As in the case of the first name in the list, this name, too, is preserved in the same way here and in document no. 10. See above, document no. 10, commentary to 11. 9-11. 6-7'. YlbnXwq KXovowq TlonXiov vibq 0i)8xcopia TdAAoc;. Differences are found, if we compare this name with that appearing in document no. 10. See above, commentary to document no. 10,11. 11-12. 7 - 8 . Tdioq Teuxioq raioi) AiuaMa %iA,tap%o<;. See above, commentary to document no. 10, 1. 12. 8-9. Se^xoi; 'Axt?iio<; Ee^xoi) vibq AiuiAia Seppavoc;. He is the first of the witnesses who appears only in this document. Suolahti observes that he bears the name of a powerful Roman gens, and may be considered tribunus. He belongs to one of the main branches of an old plebeian consular gens. One of its member was consul in 106 BCE. "After that", Suolahti writes, "the branch seems to deteriorate and to continue only by adoption. The father of Atilius may have been Sex. Atilius Serranus who came from the rich and large gens of Gavii and had moved over to the Atilii Serrani by adoption. He was quaestor in 63 and tribune of the plebs in 57. He probably was one of Pompey's supporters (see E. Klebs, "Sex. Atilius Serranus", RE, I, 4, 1896, no. 70, coll. 2099-2100). This would explain why his son could be found on the side of Pompey. The branch was possibly extinguished in the civil wars, as its members are not recorded among the later officials" ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 158). 9 - 1 0 . rdio<; Ilo(i7cr|iO(; rdi'ot) vibq
£a(3axiva. The name may have
16. Ant. XIV,
237-240
189
originally appeared in document no. 10 too, but almost all of its parts were dropped during the process of transmission of the document. What survives in document no. 10, 1. 12, is only the name of the tribe, Sabatina, which Torelli ascribes to C. Sentius (M. Torelli, "Senatori etruschi della tarda repubblica e delFimpero", Dialoghi di archeologia, 9, 1969, p. 345, no. 10). See R. Syme, "The Stemma of the Sentii Saturnini", Historia, 13, 1964, pp. 161-162 = Roman Papers, II, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, pp. 610-611 and Forni, "Intorno al Consilium di L. Cornelio Lentulo", p. 161. Suolahti observes that "he bears the name of the powerful gens Pompeia, but judging by his praenomen and tribus he belonged to some collateral branch. The tribus Sabatina is found in Italy only in Etruria and Gallia Cisalpina" ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f-.Crus", p. 159). 10. Tixo<; " A U T U O C ; T I T O U Mevavbpoq. Suolahti observes that "this name has given much trouble to scholars. The cognomen clearly indicates that he was of Greek origin, a provincial or a freedman. Cicero's words in the year 46 BCE support this view. He recommended to P. Servilius Isauricus, the proconsul of Asia, T. Ampius Menander, the freedman of his friend T. Ampius Balbus ( C i c , Adfam. 13, 70: Eius libertum, T. Ampium Menandrum, hominem frugi et modestum et patrono et nobis vehementer probatum, tibi commendo maiorem in modum). There is naturally no absolute certainty that this man is the same T. Ampius Menander, but the rarity of the name and the relationshup to T. Ampius Balbus make it very probable. The identification is further supported by the fact that T. Ampius Menander wanted to go to the province of Asia". See also E. Klebs, "T. Ampius Menander", RE, I, 2, 1894, no. 2, col. 1979. As for the question of how it was possible for a freedman to be admitted to the council, Suolahti quotes a number of exceptions found in the sources and observes that requirements were eased in certain circumstances, especially during the wars. "Thus it is possible that Lentulus Cms knighted his freedman, who was a man of merit and probably rich too". Suolahti concludes that "I do not think it necessary to consider the social structure of Cms' council exceptional, even though a freedman was included. T. Ampius Menander was possibly not a military tribune of the old type at all, for the tribuni for Cms' consular legions were most likely elected by the people, who would scarcely have chosen a freedman. Menander's place in the list gives reason to suppose that he had some functions or office and is not to be counted as one of the young knights of the commander's suite. Here the functions of the praefectus, a rank to which the commander had the right to make appointments, comes to mind" ("The Council of L. Cornelius P.f.Crus", pp. 159-160). 11. YlonXwq "LepoviXwq rio7iA,io'u vibq Xtpdpcov. According to Suolahti, he was probably praefect or knight belonging to the commander's suite. Judging from his name, he came from some plebeian branch of the well known patrician gens Servilia. Miinzer identifies him with the person whom
190
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Cicero in the year 5 0 BCE recommended to P. Silius, the propraetor of Bithynia: Strabonem Servilium tibi saepe commendavi; nunc eo facio id impensius, quod eius causam Nero suscepit. Tantum a te petimus ut agas earn rem, ne relinquas hominem innocentem ad alicuius tui dissimilis quaestum. Id cum gratum mihi erit, turn etiam existimabo te humanitate tua esse usum ( C i c , Ad fam. XIII, 6 4 , 1 ) . The letter of introduction describes a Roman businessman who lived in the province, was perhaps a knight, and had noble friends in Rome ("The Council of L . Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 1 6 0 ) . See also F. Munzer, "Servilius Strabo", RE, II, 4 , 1 9 2 3 , no. 8 3 , col. 1 8 1 0 . 1 1 - 1 2 . Ae\JKio<; ndKKioc; Aeuiciou KoAAiva KamTCOv. According to Suolahti, he probably came from the same social circles of the person who precedes him in the list. "In the gens Paccia, which was of Oscan origin, no officials are recorded during the Republic. But this Paccius, belonging to a town tribus, possibly had somewhat lower social standing and was a primus pilus in Crus' legion. If there had already been enough time to appoint the primipili, those of both legions would have been called to the council" ("The Council of L . Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 1 6 1 ) . See F. Munzer, " L . Paccius Capito", RE, I, 3 6 , 1 , 1 9 4 2 , no. 1 3 , col. 2 0 6 6 . 1 2 - 1 3 . A\JA,o<; Oot>pio<; Ao3A,oi) uioq Tepxioc;. See F. Munzer, "A. Furius Tertiuus A.f.", RE, I, 1 3 , 1 9 1 0 , no. 9 4 , coll. 3 6 8 - 9 . According to Suolahti, "he was possibly a primus pilus. He belonged to a plebeian branch, originating from freedmen or provincials, of a patrician gens. He was possibly the same A. Furius mentioned in the list of mystai of Samothrace. Perhaps he was also one of those businessmen who lived in the province and were called to military service at the outbreak of the war" ("The Council of L . Cornelius P.f.Crus", p. 1 6 1 ) . 1 3 . "A7t7iiO(; Mryvac;. The cognomen indicates that he came from the coast of Asia Minor. He had probably received his citizen rights, and perhaps his freedom as well, from one of the numerous Ap. Claudii Pulchri. His military rank is not known, but from his name Suolahti assumes that he may have been a former pirate, fallen into captivity, who had later received the citizenship ("The Council of L . Cornelius P.f.Crus", pp. 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 ) . 1 4 . S O Y I I C X e^eGexo. E ^ E G E T O is the reading of P. All the other manuscripts give E C ; T | V £ Y K £ . This last verb is attested, along with 8 6 Y U < X , also in a letter written by the o-TpaTrryoi of Delos (RDGE no. 5 , 1 6 4 BCE, 11. 4 , 1 3 ) . 1 4 - 1 5 . On the expression TtoAaiac; PcoLiatcov, see document no. 1 0 , commentary to 11. 1 - 2 . 16.7cp6 T O \ ) pY||iaTO<;. See above, document no. 1 0 , commentary to 1. 3 . 1 6 - 1 7 . 8eioi8aiuovia<; eveica. See above, document no. 1 0 , commentary to 11. 3 - 4 . 1 7 . ane'kvoa. See above, document no. 1 0 , commentary to 1. 4 .
16. Ant. XIV,
191
237-240 1
The issues emerging from this text have been examined above. Here we may only add that this is the longest and most complete of the versions of Lentulus' decree quoted by Josephus. The date which appears here, however, is incomplete. Only the year appears, by the name of the consuls in office, while we do not find the day nor the month. Two inferences may be drawn from this omission: 1) this text, too, like the other preserved in documents nos. 10 and 13, does not represent the original version of Lentulus' decree, as Mendelssohn has noted; 2) documents nos. 10 and 13 are not dependent on this text, since they do contain month and day in which the decision was taken. It follows that none of the versions of Lentulus' decree preserved by Josephus — that is, documents nos. 10, 13 and 16 — reflects the original decree issued by Lentulus, but they are all only copies and abridgments. The original decree, which did not survive, was apparently copied a number of times, and in different fashions according to the different styles and criteria of the copyists. 2
1
See above, pp. 1 5 7 - 1 6 2 .
2
"Senati Consulta", p. 179.
17. Ant. X I V , 2 4 1 - 2 4 3 4 7 or 4 6 B C E
Letter written by the magistrates of Laodicea to the Roman proconsul in which they display obedience to his instructions concerning the Jews' right to observe the Sabbath and to perform their other rites in accordance with their native laws. Bibliography F. Ritschl, "Eine Berichtigung der republicanischen Consularfasten. Zugleich als Beitrag zur Geschichte der romisch-judischen Internationalen Beziehungen", RM, 28, 1873, p. 6 1 2 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Zu den romischen Senatusconsulten und Decreten bei Josephus", RM, 3 0 , 1875, p. 118; idem, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 2 8 ; T. Homolle, "Le proconsul Rabirius. Correction au texte de Josephe", BCH, 6, 1882, pp. 6 0 8 - 6 1 2 ; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 108; T. Reinach, "Antiochus Cyzicene et les Juifs", REJ, 38, 1899, pp. 1 6 1 - 1 7 1 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 4 6 - 1 4 7 ; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, p. 167; M.S. Ginsburg, Rome et laJudee, Paris 1928, p. 97; Lea Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 7 0 - 7 1 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, p. 375; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 416; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1979, pp. 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 1 7 2 - 3 , 197; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 7 9 , note 33; H.R. Moehring, "Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Josephus", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 896; A.M. Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 1291; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 119; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 116, note 37; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 678; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 7 0 .
17. Ant. XIV,
241
242
243
193
241-243
(x. 20) AaoSiK£cov apxovxeq Tat'cp Papr-picp Taiou uicp dvOmaxcp x a i p E i v . Eamaxpot; TpKavoij xo\J dpxiepecoc; npeo^evxi\q drcEScoKEv fiutv xr\v napa GOV £7uaTO?tT|v, 8i' r\q edr\kovq r\\iiv napa TpKavoi) xov 'IovSaicov dpxi£p£co<; EXr-XijOdxac; xivaq ypdu|iaxa K o u i a a i 7 i e p i xov edvovq avxcov yeypaujiEva, i v a xd X E a d p p a x a aijxoic"; s ^ f j dyEtv K a i i d Xoina i £ p d £7cii£?i£iv K a x d xovq rcaxpiotx; vduovc;, d/ccoq X E ur|8£i(; a\)xoi<; £7uxdo"crrj 8id xo (piA-ovc; auxotx; fiu£X£po\)<; E i v a i K a i Gvmia%ovq, d8iKf|orj X E |iT|8£i<; auxoix; E V x f j fi(i£X£pa £ 7 u a p x i a , cb<; TpaMtiavcov X E avxEutovxcov Kaxd 7ip6aco7iov uf] dpECJKEcGai xotq 7U£pi a\)xcov 8£8oy(a£voi(; enexa^aq x a u x a ovzcoq y i v £ G 0 a r * 7tapaK£K?ifja0ai S E G E , C O G X E Kai fiutv xavxa ypd\)/ai 7cspi atixcov. r\\ieiq ovv KaxaKoTiou0o\)vx£<; xoiq £7U£axaA,u£voi<; vno GOV, xr|v X E £7iioxoA.Tiv xfiv a7co8o0£iaav £8£^d|i£0a Kai Kax£Xcopiaa|i£v £i<; xd Snuoaia fpcov y p d u u a x a , Kai 7i£pi xcov dMicov GOV eneGxaXKaq 7tpovof|oou.£v C O O X E jrn8£v (j,£|Li(|)0fjvai.
10
15
1. 'PaPripico Homolle; 'Pa^eXXico P: 'PaPiXMcp FAM: 'PayiM.i(p L: Rabilio Lat.: 'PepiXcp Ritschl.
2. dvGwtdtTCp Homolle: vnatio codd. 7. a i ) T o t q . xoiq 'Ioi)8atoi<; A M Lat.
Translation The magistrates of Laodicea to the proconsul Gaius Rabirius, son o f Gaius, greeting. Sopatrus, the envoy of the high priest Hyrcanus, has delivered to us a letter from you, in which you have informed us that certain persons have come from Hyrcanus, the high priest o f the Jews, bringing documents concerning their people, to the effect that it shall be lawful for them to observe their Sabbaths and perform their other rites in accordance with their native laws, and that no one shall give orders to them, because they are our friends and allies, and that no one shall do them an injury in our province; and as the people of Tralles objected in your presence that they were dissatisfied with the decrees concerning them, you gave orders that they should be carried out, adding that you have been requested to write also to us about the matters concerning them. We, therefore, in obedience to your instructions, have accepted the letter delivered to us and have deposited it among our public archives; and to the other matters on which you have given us instructions we shall give such attention that no one shall incur blame.
194
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Commentary 1. Ritschl proposes to identify this magistrate with the well known C. Rebilus (Ritschl, "Eine Berichtigung der republicanischen Consularfasten", p. 612), but today Homolle's emendation 'PafJripicp is generally accepted, and so his suggestion to read his title dv6v7rdxcp instead of \)7udxcp ("Le proconsul Rabirius", BCH, 6, 1882, pp. 6 0 8 - 6 1 2 . On Homolle's emendation, see R. Syme, "Review of Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (1951-1952)", CPh, 50, 1955, p. 131. See also Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 577, note d). He may be identified with C. Rabirius (Curtius) C.f.Postumus, proconsul in Asia in 47, where he probably arrived in 48 after Pharsalus. He left Asia before the arrival of Servilius Isauricus in 46, and in this year we find him in Africa with Caesar (on his proconsulate, see the sources quoted by Broughton, MRR, III, 1986, p. 181). He was therefore in office in Asia between 48 and 46, not in 45 as Juster suggested (Les Juifs, p. 146, note 7). 2. This is the common form of the "salutation" found in official Roman correspondence. It follows the example of the Hellenistic Greek letters, which begin with the name of the sender in nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative, and finally the word of greeting. See RDGE, pp. 189-190 and above, p. 18. 2. As far as we know, the Jewish envoy Sopatros is otherwise unattested. 2 - 3 . If the Roman official is identified with Rabirius, then Hyrcanus is Hyrcanus II, and not Hyrcanus I as Reinach suggests ("Antiochus Cyzicene et les-Juifs", pp. 161-171). Against the arguments advanced for the view that this document is to be dated in the reign of Hyrcanus I (see Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 577, note e), it may be observed that the Roman documents written in the second century BCE concerning the Jews have a distinct diplomatic character of reciprocity. They never mention Jewish rights, which is clear in light of the fact that in the second century BCE Judaea was still independent under its own Hasmonean rulers and did not depend on Rome for the exercise of those rights. And if the Hyrcanus mentioned here is Hyrcanus II, his intervention on behalf of the diaspora Jews appears logical and natural, since he had received from Caesar the right to represent and protect his fellows Jews (TCOV IouSatcov rcpo'iaTfycai xcov dSiKouuevcov: document no. 2,11. 3-4). Some years later, he also intervened on behalf of the Jews of Ephesos, as we learn from document no. 9. 5-6. The ypdujiaxa... Tcepi xox> eQvovq auxcov yeypaixiieva may be identified with Caesar's decree, or decrees, concerning the Jews, but not with the fragments preserved by Josephus in documents nos. 1-6. See below, pp. 197-198. 7. xd xe odppaxa. The observance of the Sabbath is mentioned here for the first time. On the Sabbath in the Roman world, see R. Goldenberg, "The fewish Sabbath", pp. 414^147; Schurer, The History, II, ed. G. Vermes, F.
17. Ant. XIV,
241-243
195
Millar, M. Black, Edinburgh 1979, pp. 467-475; P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge-London 1997, pp. 8 2 - 9 2 . 7-8. xd A,oi7id iepd. The term iepd referring to the Jewish cult appears in this document, written in 47 or 46 BCE, for the first time. About six or seven years later, we find it also in the letter written by Dolabella to Ephesus (document no. 9,1. 12) and in that sent to Paros (document no. 7,1. 6). 8. The expression K a x d xovq T i a x p i o v c ; vouoix; often occurs in official Roman documents in a non-Jewish context. L.Cornelius Scipio and his brother write to Herakleia in Karia: "We grant to you your freedom just as also [to the] other pities which have given us the power of decision (over them), retaining your right to govern all your affairs [by yourselves] according to your own laws..." (RDGE no. 35 = RGE no. 14, 190 BCE, 11. 10-12). And in an inscription from Narthakion, Thessaly, we read: "...according to the laws of the Thessalians, laws which they use to the present day, laws which Titus Quinctius (Flamininus), consul, after consultation with the Ten Commissioners had given them, also in accordance with a decree of the senate..." (RDGE no. 9 = RGE no. 38, 140 BCE, 11. 50-54). Caesar, too, writes to Mytilene: "...according to [your laws and the] privileges which you have had from us [formerly and those which] have been given to you [by this] decree to enable you [ to enjoy] the revenues of your city and its territory in peace (RDGE no. 26, col. b = RGE no. 83,11. 2 8 - 3 1 , written between April 46 and January/February 45 BCE). On the legal value of this expression see below, pp. 413^115; and on its meaning in practice in the case of the Jews, see pp. 430-438. 9 - 1 0 . 5id xo (|)iA,ot><; duxoix; fjuexepoox; e l v a i K a i av^&xovc,. In Caesar's decree preserved in document no. 1, 11. 2 3 - 2 5 , too, Caesar calls Hyrcanus and his children tyiXoi K a i or>u|iaxoi (on the meaning of these terms, which was only formal, see commentary ad locum). It looks strange that the Jews are called "our allies" by the magistrates of Laodicea: the Jews may have been regarded as "allies" of the Romans, but surely not of the magistrates of Laodicea. We may explain this expression by assuming that these words originally appeared in the letter written by Rabirius, and then slipped into the letter of the magistrates of Laodicea, who copied sections of it without paying much attention. 10. The verb d8iK£co also appears in RDGE nos. 31,1. 92; 38,1. 12; 43, 1. 24; 67, 1. 36. 11. The complaints of the people of Tralles (in Caria, c. 120 Km W. of Laodicea) probably took place while the Roman magistrate was holding court. Controversies between Greeks and Jews, which took place at Tralles before a Roman magistrate, are attested also by document no. 18. Tralles was one of the thirteen assize-centers of Asia Minor. See below, document no. 18, commentary to 1. 4.
196
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
12. uf] dpeoKeaGai. In republican age, this expression is often found referring to the senate: xfj a*uYKA,f|xcp dp£o*K£i, translating the Latin senatui placere (RDGE, nos. 26, col. c, 1. 3; 28 B, 1. 6; 58,11. 44, 63, 70). See Sherk, RDGE, p. 15. The expression E j i o i dpeoKei appears also in Octavian's letter concerning Delian Jews (document no. 7, 1. 7), and, without jxoi, in the letter he wrote to the magistrates of Rhosos (RDGE, no. 58, written between 42 and 30 BCE, 11. 63, 70). 13. The verb emxdxxco often appears in Roman documents written in the first century BCE (?). See for example Aphr. nos. 2 B, 11. 3-4; 8,1. 74; 9 , 1 . 6. 14-15. After the expression xcrOxcx ouxcoq yiv£o9ai we would expect to find the decision itself, as it usually happens in official Roman documents. See for example RDGE, nos. 18,11. 111-112 (iv[a xavxa] ovxcoq Yiv[co]vxai); 22, 1. 30 (xavxa oikco yiv£a0ai); 58, 11. 70-71 (xavxa xd 7tpoY£Ypau|i£[va dncoq o\3x]coc; ye.ivT\xai). Here, however, we do not find the decision, namely, Rabirius' own confirmation of the Jewish rights mentioned above on 11. 7 - 8 . We only read that Rabirius was requested to write also to the Laodiceans "about the matters concerning them". It therefore appears that something, actually the main part, that is, Rabirius' decision, got lost here between the two phrases. 15-16. The verb KaxaKoX,ot»0£co also appears in an honorary decree of a o\)U|iopicx for its four 7tpooxdxai (SEG XXXV, 1985, no. 1152, second century BCE, 1. 7) and in RDGE no. 70, 1. 4. Formal displays of obedience to Rome on the part of Greek magistrates are common features in Greek inscriptions. See above, p. 171. 17-18. Roman documents were often deposited in the archives of the Greek cities when they happened to concern them. This is so not only in the case of alliances (for example, IG IV, 1 no. 63 = RGE no. 51, 112/111 BCE), but also in that of documents of other kinds. In a letter sent by a Roman official to several cities of the province of Asia, for example, we find the order "...that they might deposit (a copy of this letter) in the archives of the Nomophylakia and the Chrematisteria" (RDGE no. 52 = RGE no. 77, 51/50 BCE (?) or c.29 BCE (?), 11. 53-54). Two letters sent by Octavian, too, explictly ask the recipients to enter the document into their archives (RDGE no. 58 = RGE no. 86, Letter I, between 42 and 30 BCE, 11. 5-8, and RDGE no. 28 A = RGE no. 87, 11. 49-50). The order to deposit the document in the public archives also appears in Caesar's letter to Sidon (document no. 1, 1. 7). On Greek archives, see below, pp. 403^4-04. 2
This letter represents the final stage of a process which probably started with the complaints of the Jews to Hyrcanus. They were the Jews of Laodicea, of Tralles and perhaps also those living in other places in Asia, as may be inferred from 1. 14, where Rabirius is said to have been requested to write "also" to the Laodicean magistrates. The Jews complain that their Greek neighbors try
17. Ant. XIV,
241-243
197
to prevent them from observing the Sabbath and from performing their sacred rites. What were the underlying reasons which prompted Greeks' interference with the Jewish cult, we do not know. We are only told that Hyrcanus II intervened on behalf of the Laodicean Jews, apparently in his role as high priest, ethnarch and Ttpooxdxrn; xcov 'Iou5aicov (see above, commentary to 11. 2-3). An envoy was sent to the Roman magistrate in office, bringing Roman documents attesting Jews' freedom to observe the Sabbath and to perform their sacred rites along with a letter written by Hyrcanus. As for the possible identification of these documents, we may regard as significant the fact that Rabirius calls the Jews <j)iA,oi K a i oiJULia%oi of the Romans (11. 9-10). This is the same expression,which appears in Caesar's decree preserved in document no. 1, 11. 2 4 - 2 6 , referring to "Hyrcanus and his children". It is therefore possible that the documents which reached Rabirius were Caesar's decree and its confirmation by the Roman senate, issued respectively in June and in October 47 BCE. In this case, it follows that the events mentioned in this letter took place, and Rabirius' letter was written sometime between October 47 and the end of 46. 1
From this letter it emerges that these Roman documents constituted an important legal precedent which convinced Rabirius to side with the Jews. Legal precedents had an enormous importance in a conservative system such as the Roman one. A case similar to this one is preserved in a letter written to Chios by a governor of Asia. A decision taken by a preceding proconsul had been read aloud. Then, later, each party in opposition met the Roman governor. He listened to them, requesting from each party more carefully written memoranda. "When I received [these], I appropriately fixed my attention on them and the oldest (document) I found was a sealed copy of a decree of the senate ... in which ... the senate specifically confirmed that they were to enjoy the laws and customs and rights which they had when they entered into friendship with the Romans..." (RDGE no. 70 = RGE no. 108). If it was written in 47 or 46 BCE, this letter is the first document, chronologically speaking, which attests to the permission to the Jews to observe the Sabbath and "their other rites". From it we also understand that this permission was not the fruit of Rabirius' independent judgement, but that he relied on the Roman documents sent to him "to the effect that it shall be lawful for them to observe their Sabbaths and perform their other rites in accordance with their native laws" (11. 5-7). If the documents sent to Rabirius may be identified with Caesar's decrees, it follows that the permission given to the Jews to observe their Sabbaths and other rites was mentioned in those sections of Caesar's decrees, and of their confirmation by the senate, which were not quoted by Josephus. In this case, two important conclusions may be reached. First, in lost parts of his decrees, Caesar mentioned in 1
But for later times, see below, pp. 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 , 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 .
198
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
detail the freedom of the Jews in cultic matters. Second, Rabirius, like other Roman magistrates in the East before and after him, simply limited himself to conforming to the policy established in Rome by Caesar and by the Roman senate. If the Jewish envoy Sopatros mentioned on 1. 2 is identified with one of the Jewish envoys who were making their way back from Rome, where, in October 47 BCE, they had obtained the senate's confirmation of Caesar's decree (or decrees), the episode dealt with in this letter may have taken place at some point in the winter of 47 BCE, but may also have occured in the spring of 46, since in ancient times long voyages were usually avoided in winter when possible. It is, however, also not impossible that Sopatros, along with other envoys, may have been specially dispatched to Rabirius from Judaea, later in 46 BCE. As for the obedience to the Roman governor displayed by the Greek magistrates of Laodicea, it is not surprising against the background of the political situation at the time. As a matter of fact, there was no choice but to obey, at least formally, as we also learn from the Greek inscriptions quoted above. . The attempt of the peoples of Tralles to oppose the legal freedom of the Jewish cult, however, which is mentioned on 11. 11-13, shows us clearly that the Greeks thought differently. And it is quite possible and probable that, in spite of the formal decision taken by Rabirius, they tried again to place obstacles before the Jews at later times. The gap between the official, formal, legal sphere and real life was apparently considerable, as it appears from the similar contents of many documents quoted by Josephus, namely, nos. 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 18-21. 2
2
See above, p. 171.
18. Ant. X I V , 2 4 4 - 2 4 6 B e t w e e n 4 6 and 4 4 B C E (?)
Letter written by the proconsul Publius Servilius Galba, son of Publius, to the magistrates, council and people of Miletus, confirming the Jews' right to observe the Sabbath, to perform their native rites and to handle their produce (perhaps with specific reference to first fruits) in accordance with their custom. Bibliography F. Ritschl, "Epimetrumzu Bd. XXVIII p. 5 8 6 - 6 1 4 : Romische Senatusconsulte bei Josephus", RM, 2 9 , 1874, pp. 3 4 0 - 3 4 1 ; L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 2 2 - 2 2 3 ; 2 2 8 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 4 7 - 1 4 8 ; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, p. 167; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1 9 6 1 , p. 9 3 ; Lea Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 7 2 - 7 3 ; S. Safrai, "Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel", CRJNT, I, 1974, pp. 2 0 2 - 2 0 3 : G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, Jerusalem 1977, pp. 94—95; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, pp. 4 1 6 - 4 1 7 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 8 8 , 1 9 8 1 , pp. 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 ; A . M . Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1 9 8 4 , p. 1291; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 119; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 117, note 37; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 678; E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, London 1990, pp. 2 9 6 - 7 ; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1 9 9 1 , p. 199, note 67; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 6 8 , note 2 6 .
244
(x. 21) UonXioc,
Lepoui^ioc; no7tA.iou vioq
TaXfiac,
dv0\maxo<; MiA,r)otcov dpxouoi Poi)A,fj Sfpcp xaipeiv. 245
Ylpvxavic,
'Epuofj
vioc,
noXixy\q
uuixepoc;
7cpoo-
eA,0cov urn ev TpaXXeciv dyovxi xf|v dyopaiov eSfjA-ou rcapd xf|v rpexepav yvc6ur|v 'Iou5aioiq i)(xd<; 7ipoo(|)epeo0ai K a i KcoXveiv auxoix; i d xe odp)J3axa 1. 3. 4.
raXfiaq.
0\)cma<; coni. Bergmann. 'EpuxyO. Mercurii Lat. ZijiO'u coni. Wilhelm. -rnv d y o p a i o v . negotia Lat.
5
200
//. The Documents
246
Quoted by
Josephus
dyeiv K a i xd iepd xd rcdxpia xeX,eiv K a i xoix; K a p 7to\)<; (iexa%eipi^ea9ai, KaGcbc; eGoc; eaxiv auxotc;, a\)x6v xe Kaxd xoix; vojioix; xeGeiKevai xo \|/f|(|)ia|ia. poi^oum ovv v\iaq eiSevai oxi 8iaKot>aa<; eycb X,6ycov £<; dvxiKaxaaxdoeax; yevojxevcov eneKpiva [ir\ KtoA/ueoGai 'Iot>8aio\x; xotc; amcov eGeai XpfjoGai. 9. 9. 9-10. 10.
10
xeOeiKevai. eiiOuvKevai P. to 8i.Kaiov P. aij-cov re .. \|/r|<|)iaua om. Lat. SiaKoiiaac;. 6tKO\)aaq FLAM.
Translation Publius Servilius Galba, son of Publius, proconsul, to the magistrates, council and people of Miletus, greeting. Prytanis, son of Hermas, a citizen of yours, came to me when I was holding court at Tralles and informed me that contrary to our expressed wish you are attacking the Jews and forbid them to observe their Sabbaths, perform their native rites and manage their produce in accordance with their custom; and that he had announced this decree in accordance with the laws. I would therefore have you know that after hearing the arguments of the opposing sides, I have decided that the Jews are not to be forbidden to follow their customs.
Commentary 1. The reading Ouaxiac; for Galba, proposed by Bergmann in 1847 (followed by Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 228), has been rejected by Reinach and by Juster. See Juster, Les Juifs, I, p. 147, note 1; Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 579, note e; Ritschl, "Romische Senatusconsulte", pp. 340-1; F. Munzer, "P. Servilius Galba", RE, II, 4, 1923, no. 58, coll. 1790-1. Scholars have identified him with P. Servilius P.f.C.n.Isauricus, praetor in 54, consul in 48 and propraetor and then proconsul in Asia from 46 BCE to 44 BCE, when he was succeeded by Trebonius. See Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 117, note 37. As a governor, P. Servilius Isauricus engaged actively in the restoration of buildings and in the recovery of the province after the war. See Broughton, MRR, II, pp. 222, 272, 298, 309-310 and III, 1986, p. 196. 2. The opening is the usual one, with the name of the sender in nominative, and that of the recipient in dative, followed by xotipeiv. It is the common form of the "salutation" found in official Roman correspondence. See above, p. 18. 3. ript>xavi<; 'Epuoti v'wq. All the manuscripts give the same reading. That is why Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 579, note g) is probably correct in rejecting
18. Ant. XIV,
244-246
201
Wilhelm's suggestion (based on an inscrition found at Thera) to read Simos instead of Ermas. The Latin version gives the Latin correspondent, translating the name into Mercurii. 3. It is not impossible but surely improbable that Prytanis was a citizen of the noXiq of Miletus. It rather appears that here the term noXixT\q does not have a specific legal significance but a general one meaning "inhabitant". On the various meanings of the term noXixr\q in the historical period under consideration, according to the different contexts in which it appears, see above, pp. 2 7 - 3 0 , and document no. 9, commentary to 1. 7. 4. The province of Asia was divided into districts, and each of them had a principal city in which the Roman governor held court once each year. Jones stresses that the system was evidently intended to suit the convenience of the governor rather than that of the provincials (A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 1971, p. 61). Tralles in Caria, c. 120 km West of Laodicea, was one of these assize-centers. We find it mentioned also in a letter of a Roman official sent to the judiciary centers of Asia (RDGE no. 52, 51/50 or 29 BCE = RGE no. 77). See C. Habicht, "New Evidence from Asia", JRS, 65, 1975, pp. 6 8 - 9 , 71 and G.P. Burton, "Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire", JRS, 65, 1975, pp. 9 2 - 9 3 . 5. The words Tucxpd xf]v fiuexepav yvc6ur|v imply that the people of Miletus had already been informed of Roman policy concerning the freedom of the Jewish cult. We do not know, however, whether specific Roman decisions made at Miletus are meant here, or the general Roman policy evident since Caesar's days. 6-7. xd xe od|3(3axa dyeiv. On the observance of the Sabbath, see document no. 17, commentary to 1. 7. 7. The expression xd i e p d xd rcdxpia xeXelv is misunderstood in the Latin translation, where we find "vel templa patria perficere". See Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 223. 7-8. The expression xovq ycapnovq uexa%£ipi£ea9ai is ambiguous, and different interpretations of it have been offered. On one hand, we find the suggestion that the expression may refer to the Jewish practice, in the diaspora too, of offering monies in place of the first fruits to be sent to Jerusalem. In the LXX, too, Kapnoq sometimes means first-fruit (see Marcus in the Loeb ed., VII, p. 581, note a) and Philo mentions the d7capxoti offered by the Jews of Egypt which were sent to Jerusalem (Leg. 291, 311; see also De spec.leg. 152). Leg. 156 is particularly specific, stating that "they (the Jews) collect money for sacred purposes from their drcapxai and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices". According to this interpretation, the passage would mean: "'to administer their fruits': apparently revenues destined for transmission to Jerusalem" (Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 93, note 2). See also V. Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1963, pp. 9 2 - 9 3 , note 56.
202
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
On the meaning of Philo's passages, see also E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970, pp. 2 3 7 - 8 and eadem, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 125, note 19. Kasher translates D">3U3 u m p n m a n n a (Philo of Alexandria: Writings [Hebr.], I, ed. S. Daniel-Nataf, Jerusalem 1986, p. 94. See also pp. 9 4 - 9 5 , note 219). Similarly, the term KapTCOix; which appears in our text is translated nrrrnKlin by A. Schalit in his translation of the Antiquities into Hebrew (III, Jerusalem 1973, p. 139) and m-pa by Lea Roth-Gerson (The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews, p. 73). The Latin version translates "fructusque sua consuetudine colligere" (see Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta", p. 223), and Askovith translates "and to manage the fruits of their land according to their ancient custom" (The Toleration of the Jews, p. 167). Biichler's suggestion that this phrase "can only refer to the delivery of the tithes of the produce of the land" (A. Biichler, Studies in Jewish History: the Adolf Biichler Memorial Volume, ed. I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz, London 1956, p. 5) is accepted by Alon, who translates this passage: "to deal with the fruits according to their laws". Alon observes that the custom of the Jews of Cilicia of bringing the heave-offering and tithe to Eretz Israel is later confirmed by the story of Epiphanius (Haeres. 30, 11) about Joseph the apostate, who, until his conversion to Christianity, served as an "emissary" of the Patriarch and was sent to Cilicia, where he collected in each city the "tithes" and "heave offerings" (xd emSeKaxa Kai xd<; drcapxdc;) from the Jews of the country. The collection of "tithes" and "heave-offerings" by the. Patriarch was undoubtedly based on the custom of the Jews of Cilicia, prior to the destruction of the Temple, to send these contributions to Jerusalem. Alon observes that "undoubtedly the bringing up of the dough-offering to Jerusalem is to be equated with that of the first fruits ( n m : m ) and firstlings cited in the same Mishnah (M.Halla 4:10). Although the later Halakha enacted not to accept the dough-offering nor the heave-offerings and tithes that came from outside Eretz-Israel, there is no doubt that it was the ancient custom to bring the dough-offering from outside Eretz-Israel to Jerusalem. That of separating heave-offerings and tithes even outside the Land was a custom at least in certain places, Babylonia for example, Asia Minor and Egypt" (G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, Jerusalem 1977, pp. 9 3 - 9 5 , and notes 12-13). Safrai, too, observes that "Biichler rightly explained this as meaning that the Jews of Miletus should be allowed to set aside their tithes and bring them to Jerusalem.... The edict equates the produce with the payments which fulfilled sacred duties, that is, the half-shekel, with whose transfer to Jerusalem the permission was essentially concerned" (Safrai, "Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel", pp. 202-203). Safrai also observes that "there is evidence that Diaspora Jews tithed their grain and that only at the end of second-beginning of the third century did a pair of sages come to Babylonia to rule that they should cease tithing in the Diaspora. It is possible that this ruling expressed the crystallization and expansion of
18. Ant. XIV,
244-246
203
the legal concept that the Land-related laws only apply in the Land. It is not impossible that the Halacha was influenced by the economic difficulties inherent in tithing when competing with a non-Jewish majority" (S. Safrai, "The Land of Israel in Tannaitic Halacha", Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, ed. G. Strecker, Gottingen 1983, p. 205). On the relationship between the diaspora and Jerusalem, see also S. Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1985, pp. 54-74. Sanders, on the other hand, observes that the letter in question mentions neither the Temple tax nor sending money to Jerusalem (Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, p. 366, note 40), and that the letter to Miletus "allows the Jews to manage or handle their produce in accordance with their custom. 'Manage' or 'handle' does not easily mean 'sell 10% of the produce and send the money to Jerusalem'. If the produce itself were sent, 'handle' might be appropriate; but sending crops is most unlikely. Probably not many Jews in Miletus were farmers; but even if they were, only a few crops could be tithed — e.g. grain or fruit which could be dried. Sending anything else to Jerusalem would be pointless, since the food would spoil en route. All other passages refer to money or objects made of precious metals. Jews, we have seen, needed permission to send money out of their home province, but in granting this right no one would use the term 'handle produce'. Thus the passage does not refer to anything sent to Jerusalem — neither foodstuff nor money. The order to the magistrates and council of Miletus much more likely means that they should allow the Jews to control their own food supply" (Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, pp. 296-7). Uncertainty still prevails among contemporary scholars. Trebilco observes that "the decree could imply that the Jews were unable to obtain or to sell the food they required, in which case this would be another example of Jews in Asia Minor being concerned about food laws. The letter was written by the proconsul, and so the wording may not reflect actual Jewish usage.... K a p r c o t x ; . . . could simply refer to Jewish money here" (Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 199, note 67). Barclay translates this passage "to manage their funds" (Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 268) and observes that "Kap7toi could refer to temple dues, funds in general or food supply; if the first, we can imagine that the Jews' failure to win their appeal against Flaccus had set a precedent difficult to overturn" (p. 268, note 26). 9 - 1 0 . The verb xi0r|(ii is often used to mean "lay down a decree" (as we find in RDGE no. 47, col. 2, 1. 29). If the \j/f|(t)ia^a had been issued against the Jews, however, it had obviously been laid down by the magistrates of Miletus: hence we would expect a plural subject and not cruxov. Prytanis could not have laid down a \|/r|(biajaa by himself, and clearly not against his people. It therefore appears that the phrase has been preserved in a corrupt fashion by the Greek manuscripts. This may be the reason why it does not appear in the Latin version.
204
//.
The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
10. The verb fk)t>A,oum is often employed by Roman magistrates not only in their decrees but also in their letters sent to Greek cities. See above, document no. 1, commentary to 1. 8. A similar expression — v\iac, eiSevai J3OUA,6|AEGO: — appears in the senatus consultum aliaque acta de Oropiorum et publicanorum controversiis (RDGE no. 23, 73 BCE, 1. 3), and ujxaq... e i 8 e v a i GEA.CO is also found in the letter sent by a Roman magistrate to the judiciary centers of the province of Asia in 51 or c. 29 BCE (RDGE no. 52 = RGE no. 77, 11. 20-21). 11-12. The verb emicpivco is often used to express Roman decisions. See RDGE nos. 11, 133 BCE, 1. 19; 15, 112 BCE, 1. 58; 63, 4 2 - 3 0 BCE, 1. 72. 12-13. xoic; cmtcov eGeoi xpfjoGai. A similar expression appears in RDGE no. 18, 11. 49, 9 1 , and translates the Latin moribus suis uterentur. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 15. On its meaning, see below, pp. 430-438. This is the third document quoted by Josephus (the other two being nos. 7 and 17) which attests to the difficulties encountered by the Jews in the exercise of their cult in the Greek cities of Asia Minor where they lived. From these documents we learn that not only at Delos and Paros, at Laodicea and Tralles, but also at Miletus the local Greek population tried to forbid the practice of the Jewish cult, namely, the observance of the Sabbath and the performance of their sacred rites. In spite of the fact that the text is corrupt, it also appears that a decree was issued on this item by the Greek authorities. A decree against Jewish religious freedom does not represent an isolated case. From the letter sent to Delos, too, we learn that the magistrates of Paros had "prevented the Jews by statute from observing their national customs and sacred rites" ( \ ) U £ i < ; \|/u
1
pp.
On the probable background of the Greek-Jewish conflict in Asia Minor, see below, 254-255,271-272.
18. Ant. XIV, 2
244-246
205
Minor where the Jews lived, here we see that a different decision might in theory have been made by the local magistrate. The ultimate decision rested in loco, and it is possible — perhaps probable? — that cases also existed, which Josephus obviously does not report, in which decisions against the Jews were reached (one of which was that of Flaccus in Alexandria in 38 CE). As for the date of this episode occuring at Miletus, from 11. 3-5 we learn that Publius Servilius wrote this letter after he had held court at Tralles, which means that he was himself present in loco. And if we may identify him with P. Servilius P.f.C.n.Isauricus, who was proconsul in Asia from 46 and 44 BCE (see above, commentary to 1. 1 ) , then it was at some point during these years that our letter was written.
2
See above, pp. 116, 147.
19. Ant. X I V , 2 5 6 - 2 5 8 After June 4 7 ( ? )
Decree passed by the people of Halicarnassus which allows the Jews to observe the Sabbath, to perform their sacred rites in accordance with the Jewish laws and to build places of prayer near the sea in accordance with their native customs.
Bibliography >
L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus",/45f L, 5, 1875, p. 2 2 6 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 148; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, p. 167; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University o f Jerusalem 1972, pp. 7 3 - 7 4 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, p. 375; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 135, note 5 3 ; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 4 1 7 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 189; H.R. Moehring, "Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Josephus", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2 , 1984, p. 896; A . M . Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans 1'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2 , 1984, p. 1291; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 120; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 117, note 37; p. 144; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, pp. 6 7 8 , 6 8 0 ; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 7 0 .
256
257
(x. 23) ^Fri^iafxa 'AAiKapvaaecov. £7ci iepeox; Meuvovoc; xov 'Apiox£iSot>, Kaxd §£ 7totr)aiv E\)covt>|io\), 'Av9£0"xnpicovo<; * edo^e xcp 5f|ucp, £icriYT)oafi£vo\) MdpKot) 'AA-E^avSpov. enel xo 2. Me|avovo<;. Necooq coni. Wilhelm. 2. £7ti iepecov ueiivcovoq Kai dpio"ri.8oi) P. 3.
ETJCOVUUOU o m . L. MEVOXXOU c o n i . W i l h e l m .
3. 'Av6eaTnpi(ovo<;. 'AvGecmpiai; P., unde 'AvOeoTnpicovoc; i d coni. Niese. 3. lacunam indicavit Gronovius.
19. Ant. XIV,
258
207
256-258
npoq TO Geiov £\)GE(3£<; Kai oaiov EV a7iavTi Kaipco 8id G7uo\)8fjc; E^OJIEV, KaTaKoAouGouvTEt; TCO 8f|^ico TCOV 'Pconaicov rcavTcov dvGpcoTucov OVTI E U E p y E x n , Kai olq 7cepi xfjc; Iou8aicov (|)iA,ia<; Kai a\)\iiia%iaq npbq TT]V noXiv £ypa\|/£v, orccoq GUVTEkcovTai avToic; a i £i<; TOV GEOV iepo7coiiai Kai eopTai a i elGiaixevai Kai ouvo8oi, SeSoxGai Kai fifiiv 'Iou8aicov xovq Poa)X,o|Li£vo\j(; dvSpac; TE Kai yuvaiKac; Td TE GdppaTa
5
10
dyEiv Kai Td i£pd GDVTE^EIV KOTO TOIX; IoiiSaiKoix;
•
v6(j.o\x;, Kai xdq 7cpoG£\)%d<; 7ioi£iGGai npoq TTJ GaA,dTTrj ^aTd TO 7idTpiov EGO<;. dv 5E TI<; KCOA,IJGT] f) dpxcov fi iSicoxrn;, TCO5E TCO ^nfiicoumi TJJTEIJGDVOI; EGTCO
Kai 6(|)£lA£TC0 Tfj 7t6X,£l.
6. £%ouev habent Lat. 13. K a x d xoix; 'Iot)8a'{Ko\)c; v6uo\)<; L A M 'Io\)8ai(ov vououq PF. 16. xcpSe. 6 8 e Hudson.
Lat.
Kaxa
xoi>q
Translation Decree of the people of Halicarnassus. In the priesthood of Memnon, son of Aristides and, by adoption, of Euonymus * of Anthesterion, the people passed the following decree on the motion of Marcus Alexander. Whereas at all times we have had a deep regard for piety toward the Deity and holiness, and following the example of the people of Rome, who are benefactors of all mankind, and in conformity with what they have written to our city concerning their friendship and alliance with the Jews, to the effect that their sacred services to God and their customary festivals and religious gatherings shall be carried on, we have also decreed that those Jewish men and women who so wish may observe their Sabbaths, and perform their sacred rites in accordance with the Jewish laws, and may build places of prayer near the sea, in accordance with their native custom. And if anyone, whether magistrate or private citizen, prevents them, he shall be liable to the following fine * and owe it to the city.
Commentary 1. As in document no. 12,1. 1, it is possible that here, too, the words \)/f|(|)ic|ia 'AXiKapvaGECOv do not belong to the document but are a kind of title added to the document either by Josephus or by his source. Halicarnassus was an important assize center of the province of Asia. See C. Habicht, "New Evidence from Asia", JRS, 65, 1975, p. 80. 1-2. As far as I know, there is no possibility of identifying this Memnon.
208
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Wilhelms's suggestion to read here "Neon" is rejected by Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 585, note e). See also Juster, Les Juifs, p. 148, note 3. The use of the phrase e m iepecoc; followed by name and patronymic is attested at Halicarnassus as far back as the fourth century BCE. See R. Sherk, "The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities III", ZPE, 88, 1991, pp. 253-254. 3. At Athens, Anthesterion is the eight month and approximately corresponds to February. (For a recent hypothesis on the position of the month in the calendar of Paros, see SEG XLII, 1992, no. 770). At Halicarnassus, Anthesterion is also mentioned in SEG XXVI, 1976, no. 1222, 1. 2, but the order of the months has not yet been established. Marcus suggests that at Halicarnassus Anthesterion corresponds to February/March (Loeb ed., VII, p. 585, note g), but Samuel observes: "Although a fairly large number of months are attested at Halicarnassus, there is no indication in the texts themselves which would permit the establishment of any order. Those which Bischoff placed used analogy to other Ionian calendars exclusively, as Bischoff himself pointed out. I prefer to list the months in alphabetical order" (A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, Munchen 1972, p. 113). Since the Codex Palatinus gives 'AvOeoxripiat;, Niese suggests to read 'Av0£Gxr|picovo<; id. 3. £8oc;£ xco 5f|ucp is the usual enactment formula which appears in the Greek decrees, along with eSoc^e xfj PovA,fj Kai xco 8r|(icp. See above, p. 18. 4. eioriYrioaii.evo'u MdpKov 'AXe.c]dv8poD. Marcus suggests that the Marcus Alexander who made the motion "was probably, but not certainly, a Roman official" (Loeb ed., VII, p. 586, note a). See also Juster, Les Juifs, p. 148, note 3. As for the verb used here, Rhodes and Lewis observe: "The verb EionyeiaGai, 'introduce', is used in classical prose for making a proposal.... In the prescripts of decrees, where it is used mostly in the Roman period, it might be thought appropriate either to a proposer introducing a motion of his own, or else to a man exercising his right to access to raise a matter with the council and assembly, or to a council or an official sending forward or a chairman putting to the vote a motion proposed by somebody else" (I am grateful to Prof. Rhodes who let me have per litteras this information taken from his and Lewis' work on The Decrees of the Greek States, forthcoming at Oxford). 5. enei introduces the motivation clause. See, among others, R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Assos, IGSK, IV, Bonn 1976, no. 26, 37 CE, 1. 5; P. Frisch, Die Inschriften von Lampsakos, IGSK, VI, Bonn 1978, no. 34,1. 6; T. Ihnken, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Sipylos, IGSK, VIII, Bonn 1978, no. 1, 1. 1. 4-6. The deep respect which the Greeks claim to have toward the Deity and holiness and their readiness to follow the example of the Romans find a parallel in the senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus issued in 39 BCE, were we read: "in accordance with the sense of duty to the gods felt by the Roman people" (Aphr. no. 8, 1. 38).
19. Ant. XIV,
256-258
209
7. On the motif of the Romans as "benefactors and saviours" see below, pp. 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 . 8. nepi xfjq 'Iou8aicov fyiXiaq Kai o\)U|ia%ia<;. It should be recalled that in document no. 17, too, the Roman friendship and alliance with the Jewish people is the reason why the magistrates of Laodicea allow the Jews "to observe the Sabbath and perform their other rites in accordance with their native laws" (11. 5-10). 9. npoq xr\v noXiv eypa\|/£v. Letters on behalf of freedom of cult for the Jews, written by Roman magistrates to the senate of Greek cities in Asia in the years following Caesar's death, are attested by documents nos. 7, 9, 12, 14, 17. 10. i£p07coiiai Kai eopxai ai eiOiouevai. The observance of the Jewish festivals is amply attested in Roman times. A papyrus written in the first century BCE at Apollinopolis Magna (CPJ I, no. 139) mentions the "third feast" (perhaps Passover? see the commentary of A. Fuks, CPJ, I, p. 255). Paul opposes the celebrations of ufjveq and Kaipoi (Gal. 4, 10) and speaks against the celebration of any eopxf| or veou/nvia (Col. 2, 16). The observance of the first day of the month is attested in Horace, Sat. I, 9, 69 (= Stern, GLAJJ I, no. 129), and Jewish festivals are mentioned in CIJ no. 725, from Delos (apparently referring to Yom Kippur), no. 777 from Phrygia (Passover) and CPJ III, no. 452a from Egypt (the feast of the Tabernacles). We also have a papyrus found in Egypt and written in the second or third century CE which mentions "sheeps (sold?) to the Jews for a contributory feast" (CPJ III, no. 467,11. 13-14). Probably in the third century CE, at Aphrodisias, some names of the Jews seem to refer to the Jewish festivals. Reynolds and Tannebaum emphasizes "a striking enthusiasm for names which refer to festivals — the Sabbath and an unspecified eopxr| which is likely to be the Feast of Tabernacles" (Joyce Reynolds, R. Tannebaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias, Cambridge 1987, p. 96). On Jewish festivals in Roman times, see Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives", pp. 1288-1312; Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 144, note 26, and P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, p. 199, note 70. On the Roman recognition of the Jewish calendar (but only in the religious sphere) see Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives", p. 1301. 11. On the term o"uvo8oi see above, document no. 14, commentary to 1. 4. 11. The formula SeSo^Qai Kai f p i v is the usual one which introduces the decision reached. See above, p. 18. 11-12. 'IoDSaicov xoix;... dv8pa<; xe Kai yi)vaiKa<;. This is the only instance, along with document no. 20, 11. 11-12, in which mention is made of women in the documents quoted by Josephus. The fact that this occurs in a Greek document written in Asia Minor may not be accidental. See S.J.D. Cohen, "Women in the Synagogues of Antiquity", Conservative Judaism, 34, 1980, pp. 2 3 - 2 9 ; Bernadette J. Brooter, Women Leaders in
210
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues, Chapel Hill-London 1982, pp. 5-33; Loisa Casarico, "Donne ginnasiarco (a proposito di P.Med.inv. 69.01)", ZPE, 48, 1982, pp. 117-123; Mary Taliaferro Boatwright, "Plancia Magna of Perge: Women's Roles and Status in Roman Asia Minor", in: Women's History and Ancient History, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Chapel Hill-London 1991, pp. 249-272. I wish to thank Dr. Drora Baharal for these references. 12. The expression xd odppcxxcx dyeiv also appears in document nos. 17, 1. 7, and 18,1. 6. See commentary to document no. 17,1. 7. 13-14. K a x d xoix; Iou8a'iKo\)<; vououc; closely echoes K a x d TOVC, 7taxpiov<; vouoix;, which appears in document no. 17,1. 8. In document no. 18, too, we similarly find KaGcbc; e9o<; eoxiv avxoiq. 14-15. rcpoce-uxri is one of the standard terms for the Jewish meeting places or "place of prayer" (our modern term "synagogue") (along with 7upoaeuKXTipiov and owaytoyiov) in inscriptions, in papyri, in Josephus' and in Philo's testimony, and is mostly used in Jewish contexts. See SEG XLII, 1992, no. 1849, and P.W. van der Horst, "Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 CE?" (forthcoming). As for the use of the terms rcpoceDxri and ouvaycoyri in the first century BCE and in the first century CE, in the diaspora and in Judaea, see M. Hengel, "Proseuche und Synagoge: Judische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palastina", in: The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture, ed. J. Guttmann, New York 1975, pp. 27-54; Schurer, The History, II, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, Edinburgh 1979, pp. 439-440; H.C. Kee, "The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: its Import for Early Christianity", NTS, 36, 1990, pp. 4 - 8 ; D. Noy, "A Jewish Place of Prayer in Roman Egypt", JTS, 43, 1992, pp. 118-122; F. Huttenmeister, "'Synagoge' und 'Proseuche' bei Josephus und in anderen antiken Quellen", in: Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter, ed. D.A. Koch, H. Lichtenberger, Gdttingen 1993, pp. 163-181. I wish to thank Prof. P.W. van der Horst for this reference. A connection between prayer and water — sea, rivers and generally sources of water seen as a mikve, namely, a pool for ritual purification — is amply attested in the sources since Hellenistic times. In Ar. 3 0 4 - 5 , we read that the Jewish elders who translated the Torah into Greek, "when they had washed their hands in the sea, as is the custom of all the Jews, and had offered prayer to God, [...] addressed themselves to the interpretation and clarification of each passage". The purpose of the washing of the hands was purification, as it appears from Josephus' version of the passage in Ant. XII, 106: "each day they would go to court... and, after washing their hands in the sea and purifying themselves, would betake themselves in this state to the translation of the laws". A connection between prayer and water is also found in Philo, In Fl. 122, when he writes that at Alexandria, when the Jewish synagogues
19. Ant. XIV,
256-258
211
were no longer available, the Jews "at dawn ... made their way to the parts of the beach near at hand,... and standing in the most open space cried aloud...". In the book of Judith, too, we read: "she went forth to the vale of Bethulia and bathed in the camp at the spring of water. And when she had come out of the water, she was wont to beseech the Lord the God of Israel..." (12:7). For a relation between divine visions and water, in particular, rivers, in Biblical times, see also Mekhilta d Rabbi Simeon b. Jochai (Hebr.), ed. J.N. Epstein, E.Z. Melamed, Jerusalem 1955, p. 7. For later times, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. IV, 22, 142. Similarly we learn from Acts 16: 11-13 that Paulus, while staying in Philippi, went outside the city gate "and along the river, where we thought people (the Jews) used to pray". See V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia, 1959, pp. 5 0 8 - 9 , note 33. 17. 6(|)£IA.ETCO xfj 7i6X,ei. Fines for non-compliance are extremely common, both in Greek and in Roman documents. See below, pp. 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 . The amount of the fine does not appear in our text, but it is often missing in inscriptions too. See, among others, SEG XXX, 1980, nos. 522, 524; XXXVI, 1986, nos. 147A, fr. f, 11. 3, 5; fr. d, 1. 23; 147B, fr. b+c, 1. 16; XXXIX, 1989, no. 1406, 1. 5, and the edict issued at Ephesos by the prococonsul L. Antonius Albus in 146/7 CE (H. Wankel, Die Inschriften von Ephesos, la, IGSK, Bonn 1979, no. 23) where we read on 11. 24-26: "If anyone is caught violating this decree, he shall pay to the illustrious city of Ephesos ... and beyond that he must give an account of his actions before me". On the dropping of numerals in inscriptions see below, p. 365. From the formal point of view, this document has the usual form of extant Greek decrees. After the date, which is preserved in a fragmentary fashion, we find e5oc;8 xco 8f|ucp, which is the common formula, followed by the name of the person who made the motion. The historical background follows, introduced by eicei, and then we find 8e56%6ai Kai rjulv, which introduces the decision of the Greek council, in accusative and infinitive. As for the subjects treated, beyond Jewish matters we also find motifs common to many contemporary documents. At the very beginning, the magistrates of Halicarnassus mention their own "deep regard for piety toward the deity and holiness, following the example of the people of Rome, who are benefactors of all mankind..." (11. 4-7). In fact, the respect for the divine is one of the most striking features of Roman propaganda, and is found as early as 193 BCE in a letter written by the praetor M. Valerius Messalla to the city of Teos, where we read: "That we wholly and constantly have attached the highest importance to reverence of the gods one can estimate from the goodwill we have experienced on this account from the supreme deity. Not only that, but for many other reasons we are convinced that manifest to everyone has been our own high respect for the divine" (RDGE no. 34 = RGE, no. 8,11. 11-17). As for the appreciation for the Romans as "benefactors of all mankind" on the
212
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
part of the Greeks, this formula appears in the Graeca adulatio for the first time in 182 BCE, and then throughout the whole second and first centuries BCE, in a geographical area which spans from Salonika to Cyrene, and from Delphi to Magnesia ad Meandrum. The Romans are called "common saviors of mankind" in Ephesus' declaration of war against Mithridates (SIG II, no. 742 = RGE no. 61, end of 86 or beginning of 85 BCE) and "saviours and benefactors" in a decree issued by the people of Plarasa-Aphrodisias. In 9 BCE, a decree issued by the koinon of Asia stresses that "since Providence ... has arranged the most perfect (culmination) for life by producing Augustus, whom for the benefit of mankind she has filled with excellence, as if [she had sent him as a savior] for us and for our descendants, (a savior) who brought war to an end and set [all things] in order..." (RDGE no. 65 = RGE no. 101 VI, 11. 32-36). Expression of devotion to the Roman rule is also found in a decree of the koinon of the Greeks in Asia and the People of the Sardians, which celebrates the day in which Gaius Julius Caesar, the eldest of the sons of Augustus, had put on the toga (RDGE no. 68 = RGE no. 104 A, 5 BCE). At Thessalonika, moreover, there was a cult of Tcoumoi ETjepyexai (SEG XXXVIII, 1988, no. 689). Historiography and propaganda merged and the myth of Rome grew stronger. 1
3
2
3
At the end of the decree, on 11. 15-17, we find a deterrent formula which provides a fine for transgressors. Mention of fines is not infrequent both in Roman and Greek official documents since the fifth century BCE (see SEG XLII, 1992, no. 785, from Thasos, 11. 45^18). As early as the third century BCE, we have two Latin inscriptions, dated around 240 BCE, dealing with regulations on sacred groves. The first states: "No person shall violate this grove.... If one violates this rule ... he shall give to Jupiter a sin-offering by means of an ox, and there shall be 300 asses as a fine" (Lex Luci Spoletina); while in the other we read: "If anyone acts contrary to these rules, on him, as on a person adjudged guilty, shall be the laying on of hands in the amount of fifty sesterces by whoever wishes. Or if a magistrate wishes to fine him it shall be lawful so to do". And in the Lex de provinciis praetoriis we read: "If anyone should do anything contrary to this statute... or if anyone should compass evasion from this statute or should act in any other way otherwise than is written down in this statute or intercede, or offend, with 4
1
S e e M.C. Wehrli, "Sur la formule 'les Romains communs bienfaiteurs de tous dans les inscriptions grecques de l'epoque republicaine", REL, 4 8 , 1970, pp. 3 1 - 3 2 ; idem, "Sur la formule 'Pcoumoi o i K O I V O I e i i e p y e x a i ndvtcov' dans les inscriptions grecques de l'epoque republicaine", Siculorum Gymnasium, 3 1 , 1978, pp. 4 7 9 ^ 9 6 . Aphr. no. 2, b, col. 1,1. 4. See Marta Sordi, "L'elogio dei Romani nel I libro dei Maccabei", CISA, 3, 1975, pp. 95-104. Lex luci Lucerina: A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 20. 2
3
4
19. Ant. XIV,
213
256-258
wrongful deceit, he is to be fined 200,000 sesterces for each offence which he may commit". Similarly, we find in the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae: "If anyone shall have acted... contrary to these rules, the fine is to be so much, 2,000 nummi, and if any magistrate shall wish to fine him more heavily, it is to be lawful to fine...". In imperial times, too, fines are commonly used as deterrents. An inscription preserving the end of what may be the lex sacra of Gythium states: "If they do not carry out the procession or do not sacrifice or, having sacrificed, do not make the common messes and magisterial boards sacrifices in the agora, they shall pay 2,000 drachmas sacred to the gods" (GC no. 15, 15 CE, 11. 30-33). The Lex Irnitana, too, states in chapter 96: "...wheever acts knowingly and with wrongful intent against these rules or evades this law is to be condemned to pay 100,000 sesterces to the municipes of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum". Similarly, in the Lex Municipii Tarentini, I, 1-5, we find: "...nor shall any person appropriate by fraud or peculation any money which does or shall belong to the said municipium, whether public or employed for religious ends.... Any person so acting shall be liable to a fine of four times the amount appropriated and shall be condemned to pay the said money to the municipium...", and a fine is also prescribed for those who mistreated physicians or medical assistants at Pergamum (GC no. 38, 74 CE). 5
6
7
8
9
Both formal features and the details of content examined here above are commonly found in the documents written in the same time. The main information found in this document is the permission given by the magistrates of Halicarnassus to the Jews "to observe their Sabbaths and perform their other sacred rites in accordance with the Jewish laws", which is also found, in similar terms, in documents nos. 17 and 21. The accordance of freedom of cult is not the fruit of a spontaneous choice on the part of the Greeks. The beginning of the document makes it quite clear. Beyond following the example of the Romans who were "benefactors of all mankind", we may notice that, on the practical level, the Greeks had also received explicit instructions from the Romans concerning Jewish cultic freedom. This is very reminiscent of the situations emerging from documents nos. 14 and 17, which attest a similar pressure on the part of the Romans. The Greek magistrates have no choice but to obey. So on 1. 11 we read: S£86%6ai Kai T]uav. And we may reasonably doubt whether the same permission would
5
Delphi Copy, Block C, 11. 1 9 - 2 1 : Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 2 5 6 . II, 5: Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 2 8 3 . K.J. Gonzales, "The Lex Irnitana: a new Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law", JRS, 76, 1986, p. 181 (translation on p. 199). E.G. Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters, Oxford 1912, p. 106. S e e also the Tudertine and Florentine fragments of laws, dated first century CE (A.C. Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes [supra, note 4 ] , p. 128). 6
7
8
9
214
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
have been granted had not the Romans interceded on Jewish behalf. "The recognition of the Jewish Sabbath", Goldenberg observes, "was actively imposed even on the ostensibly autonomous Greek cities. These naturally saw in such Roman intervention a grave violation of their civic freedom to regulate all internal matters, even the religious lives of foreign residents; the constant repetition of these decrees over several generations suggests that the cities continued to resist". That the Greeks tried to resist Roman interventions is also attested in the case of Tralles (see document no. 17, 11. 11-14). In our document, however, the Greeks display full acceptance of the Roman directions and we find no trace of resistence, at least on a formal level. It is worthwhile noticing that on 11. 8-9 the Roman instructions themselves are said to be due to the Romans' "friendship and alliance with the Jews". This relation does not constitute an isolated case. The same relation between Roman support for Jewish freedom of cult and the Romans' alliance and friendship with the Jews is also found in document no. 17,11. 8 - 1 1 . Juster wonders which alliance may be meant here, and Goldenberg stresses that "Rome had had an alliance with Judaea, and thus in some sense with the Jews, since the time of the Maccabees. Her intervention with the Greek cities of Asia may have seemed her duty under the terms of that alliance". We may also think, however, of more recent times. After the problematic relations at the time of Pompey, a new alliance with the Jews was established in Julius Caesar's time, as we learn from the decree issued in June 47 BCE, where the Jews are explicitly called tyiXoi Kai ot>ujia%oi (document no. 1, 11. 2 3 - 2 5 ) . If this is the alliance meant in our text, two conclusions may be reached. First, its mention may give us a clue as to the date on which this document was written, a date which is otherwise impossible to establish since we have no list available of the priests of Halicarnassus. If the alliance is that of Caesar's time, the date of the decree preserved in document no. 1, June 47 BCE, which is the first text to mention it, is also the terminus post quern of our document. Second, the permission to observe the Sabbath and other Jewish rites mentioned in our decree may have been somehow related to Caesar's policy toward the Jews, namely, to the power given by him to the Jews "to decide about their manner of life" attested in document no. 1, 11. 28-30, which may be interpreted as referring to Jewish cultic freedom as a whole. Moreover, a particular mention of the legitimacy of the observance of the Sabbath may also have appeared in one of those sections of Caesar's decrees which Josephus did not quote, as we have 10
11
12
13
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath", p. 4 1 8 . Les Juifs, p. 148, note 3. "The Jewish Sabbath", p. 4 1 9 . On the real meaning of this kind of alliance, however, see above, pp. 6 4 - 6 5 .
19. Ant. XIV,
215
256-258
14
suggested a b o v e . Goldenberg observes that "the Jewish diaspora constituted a widespread element of the population in the eastern part of the Empire, and its various segments maintained close relations and constant contact with one another. The importance of the Jews was further enhanced by the fact that they formed a significant group both in the Roman Empire and in its great rival, Parthia. It would have been foolish to embitter such a group over an issue like Sabbath-observance, which could have mattered terribly much to the Romans themselves. A loyal Jewish diaspora, on the other hand, would have been a powerful unifying force, and was clearly worth an effort. According to Hardy, 'there were really only two alternatives — to protect them or to put them, down — because a neutral policy would have meant perpetual friction and disturbances'...". There is particular importance in the fact that our document is, as far as I know, the only literary testimony which mentions the Jewish practice of building places of prayer (our modern synagogues) "near the sea, in accordance with their native custom". In fact, later rabbinic literature laid down that synagogues should be built in the highest point of the t o w n . But Jews' preference for building their synagogues near the sea is confirmed by archaeological findings. Levine observes that, whenever possible, the synagogues were erected near a source of water. The npoa£\)%r\ mentioned in CPJ I, no. 134 lay close to the water. The synagogues of Delos, Aegina and Miletus, too, lie close to the edge of the shore. The same happened in Judaea: the synagogue of Capernaum is on the shores of Lake Galilee, and in the upper Galilean town of Gischala (Gush Halav), one synagogue was built on the top of a hill and another at its foot near a spring. The synagogues of Ostia, Delos, Caesarea and Gaza, too, were built near the s e a . Laver basins for hand washing have been found in the synagogue of 'Ein-Gedi, and in the ruins of the synagogue at Gush Halav. In the synagogue of Tiberias, a fragment of inscription was found, which Ben-Dov suggests reading Nm^lpjtyn p n or Kn^Dltt/n p n . In this case, we have here an inscription attesting the donation 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1 4
See above, pp. 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 . Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath", pp. 4 1 9 - 4 2 0 and note 30. See discussion of the relevant passages in Schurer, The History, II (see above, commentary to 11. 1 4 - 1 5 ) , p. 4 4 1 , note 65. L.I. Levine, "Ancient Synagogues: A Historical Introduction", Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L. I. Levine, Jerusalem 1981, p. 4. E.L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece, London 1934, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 . M. A v i - Y o n a h , "Giscala", EJ, VII, 1971, col. 5 8 9 and Schurer, The History, II, (see above, commentary to 11. 1 4 - 1 5 ) , p. 4 4 1 , note 65. See L.I. Levin, "Caesarea's Synagogues and S o m e Historical Implications", Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Jerusalem 1993, p. 6 7 0 and the bibliography quoted in notes 33-35. D. Barag, Y. Porat, E. Netzer, "The S y n a g o g u e at 'En-Gedi'", in: Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L.I. Levine, Jerusalem 1981, p. 117. 1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
216
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
of a basin "This is the basin which X, son of Y, [made]", which refers to an ornamented stone basin which stood near the entrance of the synagogue. A Greek inscription found at Philadelphia (Ala-Shehr) in Lydia, too, mentions the donation of a laver basin to a synagogue: "To the most holy synagogue of the Hebrews, I, Eustathios the God-fearing, in memory of my brother, Hermophilos, dedicated the laver basin, together with my wife, Athnasia", and at Sardis an inscription preserving a list of fountains mentions that of the synagogue. 22
2 2
S e e Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues (supra, note 18), p. 4 9 ; L. Robert, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes, Paris 1964, p. 38; B. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives, Paris 1967, p. 31; Leah Roth-Gerson, "On the Donation of a Laver Basin to a S y n a g o g u e " (Hebr.), Qadmoniot, 10, 1977, p. 79; S. Safrai, "The Synagogue and Its Worship" (Hebr.), Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period, The World History of the Jewish People, I, 8, ed. M. Avi-Yonah, Z. Baras, Jerusalem 1977 p. 61 and M. B e n - D o v , "Fragmentary Inscriptions from an Ancient Synagogue at Tiberias", Ancient Synagogues Revealed (supra, note 17), p. 158.
20. Ant. X I V , 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 After October 4 7 B C E (?)
Decree passed by the council and people of Sardis, which allows the Jews "to come together on stated days to do those things which are in accordance with their laws". Moreover, it provides that a place shall be set apart for them to build and to inhabit, and that the market-officials of the city shall be charged with the duty of having suitable food for them brought in.
Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, p. 226; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatuspopulusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 109; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 148, 354; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, p. 167; E. Bickerman, "The Altars of the Gentiles", R/DA, 5, 1958 «= idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, p. 335; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 5 0 9 , note 34; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 7 4 - 7 7 ; S. Applebaum, "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora", CRJNT, I, p. 4 4 2 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 198; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 116; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 117, note 37 and p. 130; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, pp. 1 7 0 - 1 , 199, note 67; Hannah M. Cotton, "The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Babatha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia", JRS, 8 3 , 1993, p. 100, note 80; L. Troiani, "The n o X i x e i a of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, pp. 1 2 - 2 0 ; M. Goodman, "Sacred Space in Diaspora Judaism", Te'uda 12: Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, ed. B. Isaac, A. Oppenheimer, Tel Aviv 1996, p. 5; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-1I7 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 269.
259
(x. 24) ^ri^iaiia £ap8iavcov. £8o£e xfj PouAfj Kai xcp Sf|ucp, cxpaxriycov eianynaauevcov. enei oi KaxoiKotivxEc; fpcov £v xfj 7i6A,£i 'IouSatoi 7io?iixai noXka Kai |i£ydA.a (|)i?idv0pco7ca E O X H K O X E C ; Sid 3. e v xfj noXei an a.pxf\c, P. 3. jtoAaxca seel. Tarn.
218
//. The Documents
260
261
Quoted
by
Josephus
navxoq rcapd xov 8fpo\), Kai vuv eiaeA,96vx8(; £7ci xf|v (toiAfiv Kai xov Sfjuov 7iap8Kd^£oav, d7toKa9iaxau£vcov avxolq xcov voucov Kai xf\q eA.euGepiac; vno xfj<; o u y K ^ n x o t ) Kai xov Sfjuou xou 'Pcoumcov, i v a Kaxd xd vouit^OLieva eGrj ouvdycovxai Kai 7coA,ixei)covxai Kai 5ia8iKa£covxat npoq avxovq, 8o9fj xe Kai xonoc; auxoiq eic; 6v auAAeyouevoi u£xd yuvaiKcov Kai X E K V C O V emxe^cooi xdc; rcaxpioix; evx&c, K a i 9uaia<; x c o 9ecp 8e86x9ai xfj PouA,fj K a i x c o SfijLicp a\)yK8Xcopfja9ai a\)xoi<; a \ ) V £ p x o u . £ v o i < ; E V xaiq K p o a 7 t o 8 e 8 £ i y | j . £ v a i < ; f | U £ p a i < ; 7 t p d a a £ i v xd K a x d xoix; a u x c o v V O L I O U C ; , d(j)opio9fjvai 8' a u x o i c ; K a i xo7cov vizo x c o v a x p a x r i y c o v £i<; oiKoSouiav Kai o i K T j a i v a u x c o v , 6v dv \)7roA,d(3cooi 7tp6<; xofjx' enixr|8£iov £ivai, onioc, xe xolq xfjc; 7i6^£co<; dyopavouoi<; eni[ieXeq r\ Kai xd £K£ivoi<; npoq xpo^fjv emxfjSEia 7toi£iv £iady£a9ai.
5
10
-
15
20
9-10. Kai 7toA,ix£t)(ovTai om. A M Lat. 10. SiKaSiKd^covxai. of) 8ia8iKa^(6|i£6a FLAM, et iudicia sua 10.
disponant Lat. npoq amovq. amove,
10.
5o6fi P. e566Ti FLAM Lat.
ex Lat. Niese: aiitotx; codd.
FLA. £7tiT£A.oi£v M possint
12.
£7tiTeX,(ooiv P. emxeXGiai
13.
celelerare Lat. enixeXovai coni. N i e s e . 8e86x9ai P. S E S O K T O I OIJV FLAM, igitur visum est Lat.
15.
7tpoa7to8£8£iyu£vai<; F A M . 7tpoodji£8£8£iy|i£vaiq L. d7to8£8£iY|i£vai<; coni. Niese.
Translation Decree of the people of Sardis. The following decree was passed by the council and people on the motion of the magistrates. Whereas the Jewish citizens living in our city have continually received many great privileges from the people and have now come before the council and the people and have pleaded that as their laws and freedom have been restored to them by the Roman senate and people, they may, in accordance with their accepted customs, come together and have a communal life and adjudicate suits among themselves, and that a place be given them in which they may gather together with their wives and children and offer their ancestral prayers and sacrifices to God, it has therefore been decreed by the council and people that permission shall be given them to come together on stated days to do those things which are in accordance with their laws, and also that a place shall be set apart by the magistrates for them to build and inhabit, such as they may consider
20. Ant. XIV,
259-261
219
suitable for this purpose, and that the market-officials of the city shall be charged with the duty of having suitable food for them brought in.
Commentary 1. On the expression \|/r|(t)io|ia Zap5iavcov, see document no. 19, commentary to 1. 1. 1. e8o£e xfj PouArj Kai xco Sfpcp. This is the usual formula found in Greek decrees. See above, p. 16. It is also found in Die Inschriften von Assos, ed. R. Merkelbach, IGSK, IV, Bonn 1976, no. 26, 37 CE, 11. 10-11 and in Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Sipylos, ed. T. Ihnken, IGSK, VIII, Bonn 1978, no. 1, 1. 1 and no. 7, 1. 3. 2. axpaxrrycov eiarryr|ca|j.evcov. On the verb eianyeioGai, see document no. 19, commentary to 1. 4. For the meaning of the title axpaxriYoi, see document no. 12, commentary to 11. 2 - 3 . 2. The historical background is always introduced by e 7 t e i . See document no. 19, commentary to 1. 5. 3. oi KaxoiKO'Ovxet; r\\i(bv ev xfj noXei Io\)8aia>v rcoHxai. Whether this means that these Jews were real Greek citizens (see Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews, p. 75) is obviously highly doubtful. Marcus, followed by Smallwood, suggests that the members of a Jewish 7toA,ix£D|j.a within the Hellenistic noXiq could also have been called rcoAIxai (Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 587, note f; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 230, note 41). Luderitz, however, shows that this interpretation is probably incorrect (G. Luderitz, "What is the politeumaT\ Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. J.W. van Henten, P.W. van der Horst, Leiden-New York-Koln 1994, pp. 183-225 and especially pp. 193-5). See also C. Zuckermann, "Hellenistic Politeumata and the Jews. A Reconsideration", SCI, 8/9, 1985-1988, p. 175, note 6. Bickermann, on the other hand, suggests that the Jewish rcoAIxai mentioned here are subjects of Hyrcanus II ("The Altars of the Gentiles", p. 336, note 39), an interpretation surely possible in itself, but which in our case does not seem to fit the context well. Are we to believe Tarn, who maintains that oi KaxoiKcOvxec; rptov ev xfj 7t6A,ei Ioi)5aioi rcoMxai is a contradiction in terms, concluding that the interpolation of 7toAIxai is self-evident (a view shared by Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 171)? Not necessarily. An alternative view is possible if we recall here the conclusions reached by Tajra: "In Scripture and in the Hellenistic writers... the word %oXxxy\q oftentimes loses its strict political and juridical connotation, taking on a much wider meaning ... in Lk XIX, 19 ...the citizens are independent inhabitants freely dwelling in that place and contrasted with the king's 8oi5Aoi. The sense of these... uses from Luke's Gospel is social and economic rather than legal or political. The NT usage of the term 7coA,txr|<; is therefore generic and has no strict juridical implication.... (H.W. Tajra, The Trial of St. Paul, Tubingen 1989,
220
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
pp. 79-80). Hengel, too, observes that "7uoA.ixr|<; in Luke, as in the Septuagint and in some passages in Josephus, does not denote full legal citizenship but origin" (M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, London 1991, p. 6. See also p. 99, note 48. See also Troiani, "The rcoXixEia of Israel", pp. 12-19. See also above, pp. 2 8 - 3 0 , concerning the possible interpretation of Ant. XIV, 188). In conclusion, the term rcoAJxai which appears in our text seems to have here a quite generic significance simply meaning "inhabitants". 7 - 8 . From Greek inscriptions it emerges that the phrase d7t;oKa9ioxa|i£vcov auxoic; xcov vofxcov Kai xfj<; eXevQepiaq vnb xf\q ovyKfo^xov Kai xov br\[iov xov 'Pco|iaicov does have a legal meaning, indicating the restitution of the right to live according to their own laws, commonly given by the Romans to Greek cities. See below, pp. 413-414. As has been noticed by Viereck (Sermo graecus, p. 109) and by Bickermann ("The Altars of the Gentiles", p. 335), the expression appearing in our text may refer to Caesar's decrees concerning the Jews which had been confirmed by the Roman senate. See below, pp. 224-225. 9 - 1 0 . Kai 7uo?UT£t)C0VTai. According to Marcus, this expression, which is lacking in some of the Greek manuscripts (AM, for example) and in the Latin version, may refer to the organization of the Jewish community (no'kix£v\ia) in Sardis (Loeb ed., VII, p. 589), a view accepted by Saulnier (who sees in this document the recognition of the Jewish politeuma: "Lois romaines", p. 198) and by Trebilco (Jewish Communities, pp. 170-171). The verb, however, merely reflects the request of the Jews, and is not mentioned in the second part o f the decree, where the Greeks define the rights they accord to the Jews. And in any case, this verb, used in Jewish and Christian contexts, has various and different meanings. See Troiani, "The 7to?iix£ia of Israel", pp. 12-21. 10. SiaSiKd^covxai npdq avxovq. The right for the Jews to adjudicate suits among themselves is also mentioned in the letter written by Lucius Antonius to the Greek council of Sardis preserved in document no. 14, 11. 6-7, dated 50 or 49 BCE. Jewish courts are also attested in Egypt. In the first century BCE, a quotation from Strabo in Josephus' Antiquities attests that the head of the Jews at Alexandria, the ethnarch, governs the people "and adjudicates suits and supervises contracts and ordinances, just as if he were the head of a sovereign state" (Ant. XIV, 117). At a later period, the existence of Jewish batei-din at Alexandria, in Syria and in Babylonia is mentioned in the Talmudic literature (Tosephta, Ket., 3, 1 [see the commentary of S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, New York 1967, p. 218] and m.Peah, 4, 8. See also b.Ket. 25a and j.Ket. 2, 26d). It is not easy to establish which among the places where the Jews lived in Hellenistic and Roman times did or did not have its own court. See Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews, pp. 6 5 - 9 2 ; Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 116 and Cotton, "The Guardianship of Jesus" p. 100, note 80. On Jewish jurisdictional
20. Ant. XIV,
259-261
221
autonomy, see Schurer, The History, III, 1, pp. 119-120; II, pp. 2 1 8 - 9 . On the limits of Jewish autonomous jurisdiction, see below, pp. 4 3 2 - 4 3 3 . 11. The term 167101; is a generic one and has different meanings in different contexts. See U. Laffi, "I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi", Athenaeum, 49, 1971, p. 47, note 98. One of them is "synagogue": see Schurer, The History, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 89. In the Greek inscriptions found in Egypt, too, xonoq has, among others, the meaning of "sacred space": see E. Bernand, "Tonoq dans les inscriptions grecques d'Egypte", ZPE, 98, 1993, pp. 103-110. Similarly later, in imperial times, Hadrian accorded the right to "meet together for sacrifice" to the Dionysiac Artists (GC no. 96, 1,6). 11-12. u.£xd yuvaiKcov Kai X E K V C O V . Women are recorded also in the decree from Halicarnassus (see no. 19, commentary to 11. 11-12), while children are mentioned only here. 13. Qvoiaq xco 0ecp. These words are not easy to interpret, since Jewish sacrifices outside the Temple of Jerusalem are unattested, with the exception of the temple of Leontopolis in Egypt. See document no. 9, commentary to 11. 14-15. Bickerman interprets this passage literally, imagining that the Jewish congregation needed a place for sacrifices to be offered "by them and the God-fearing pagans of Sardis" ("The Altars of the Gentiles", p. 335), while a broader meaning is offered by Marcus (who translates the term as "offerings" (Loeb ed., VII, p. 589, note d) and by Tcherikover (who translates "worship" in the second edition of his Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 509, note 34, while in the first edition he interprets literally "the offering of sacrifices"). See below, p. 223. 13-14. The expression SeSo/Gai xfj (kn)A,fj Kai xco Sf|ucp, which also appears, abbreviated, in document no. 19, 1. 11, is the usual one which introduces the decisions taken by Greek councils. We find it also in Die Inschriften von Assos, ed. R. Merkelbach, IGSK, IV, Bonn 1976, no. 7 (100 BCE), 11. 5-6; no. 11 a ( 8 0 - 7 0 BCE), 1. 9; no. 28, second century CE, 11. 15-16 and in Die Inschriften von Kyme, ed. H. Engelmann, IGSK, V, Bonn 1976, no. 19, 14 CE, 11. 2 4 - 2 5 and in Die Inschriften von Lampsakos, ed. P. Frisch, IGSK, VI, Bonn 1978, no 7, first century BCE, 11. 2 3 - 2 4 and no. 34, 1. 6. 14. ai)YK£%copfjo"9ai ainoic;. The verb cuy/copea) often appears in official documents to mean the bestowal of grants. See RDGE nos. 17, 1. 10; 18, 1. 97; 20 E, 1. 15; 21, col. 1,1. 17; 23,11. 21, 27, 56, 57; 26, col. b, 11. 18, 22, 32; 28 B, 1. 5; 30,1. 2; 35, 1. 10; 44, 1. 3; 49 B, 11. 7-8; 57, 11. 18, 19. 15-16. Kaxd xoix; ai)xcov vou.oix;. This expression also appears in documents nos. 17, 1. 8; 19, 11. 13-14. On its meaning, see below, pp. 413-414. 16-17. d(|)opiG0fjvat 8' auxoic; Kai X O T C O V . Against Reinach's view that a 'ghetto' is meant here, Marcus, following Nock, suggests that the term xono^
222
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
here means a synagogue or communal building (Loeb ed., VII, p. 589, note e). A xo7cov i5iov is also mentioned in document no. 14,1. 6 (see commentary ad locum). The fact however that after T O T C O V we find e i q o i K o 8 o u i a v Kai O I K T I O I V a\)xcov suggests that a quarter is meant here. Separate quarters for different ethnic groups are well attested in the Hellenistic cities in Roman times. See V. Tcherikover, CPJ, I, p. 5, note 14. Separate Jewish quarters, too, are mentioned by the sources. One of them is that of Alexandria, called Delta, which Josephus mentions using the same words — xorcov i5iov — which appear in our document. Josephus stresses that the Hellenistic kings assigned the Jews "a quarter of their own, in order that, through mixing less with aliens, they might to be free to observe their rules more strictly" (Bell. II, 488. See also Bell. II, 495, and C.Ap. II, 33-36). A Jewish quarter existed also at Apollinopolis Magna (see A. Fuks in CPJ, II, p. 108) and at Oxyrhynchus (CPJ II, no. 423). See also A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Tubingen 1985, pp. 247-250. For the meaning of the term oxpaxrryoq, see commentary to document no. 12,11. 2 - 3 . 19. OTWSC,. See document no. 19, commentary to 1. 5. 19. The dyopavouxx;, the market superintendent, had general supervision of the sale of merchandise in the city-market in the Greek cities. He established prices, ensured adequate supplies and determined the accuracy of weights. See A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 679. Market officials are mentioned in SEG XLI, 1991, nos. 649 and 658. 20. xd e K e t v o n ; jipoq xpo<|)f]v £7iixr|8£ia. Dietary laws were not unusual in Roman times. See R.M. Grant, "Dietary Laws among Pythagoreans, Jews and Christians", HTR, 73, 1980, pp. 299-310. Feldman observes: "In the third century CE, Diogenes Laertius (I, 6-9) writes that the food laws of the sixth century BCE philosopher Pythagoras had been borrowed from the Jews. This is corroborated by Hermippus of Smyrna (cited in C.Ap., I, 165) in the third century BCE: 'it is correctly stated that that great man [Pythagoras] introduced many points of Jewish law into his own philosophy'. And Celsus, in the second century CE, quoted by Origen, Against Celsus, 5, 43, cites the similarity between the Jewish dietary laws and the Pythagorean abstention from beans and flesh. As for the abstention from pork, Josephus stresses that the Egyptian priests also abstained from pork (C.Ap. II, 137, 141) and there were many other countries where pork was forbidden food. Abstention from certain animals on the part of the Pythagoreans and the Egyptians is also mentioned by Plutarch (Quaestiones Conviviales, IV, 5, 2, 670 C-D). In his History of Cyzicus, too, Agathocles notes that the Cretans abstained from eating pork" (L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, Princeton 1993, pp. 224-5). The document starts with the standard formula ebo^e xfj
f k > t > m Kai
xcp 5f|u.tp,
20. Ant. XIV,
223
259-261
axpaxrrycov eiariyriaaiievcov. The historical background follows, introduced by 87tei, and then we find 8eS6%9ai xfj (3o\)A,rj Kai xco Sfpcp, which is the usual, standard expression found in Greek decrees. The document has the usual formal features of Greek decrees. It is quoted, however, in a fragmentary fashion, and we do not find the date nor the names of the magistrates who passed the motion. As for the content, the Jews ask of the Greeks formal recognition of three rights. The first is the right of "coming together and having a communal life", which is also found in other documents quoted by Josephus, such as nos. 7, 9, 19. The second right, that of "adjudicating suits among themselves", appears only here and in document no. 14 (11. 5-7), which comes, too, from Sardis. The question may therefore be asked whether the fact that the only two documents dealing with an autonomous Jewish jurisdiction were written at Sardis is, or is not, merely coincidental. No clear answer, however, is possible, since the testimony we have is minimal. The third request of the Jews (11. 10-13) concerns a place in which to gather and offer "their ancestral prayers and sacrifices", where the last word demands an explanation. Beyond those suggested above, in the commentary to 1. 13 (see also document no. 9, commentary to 11. 13-14), we must remember who is speaking here, that is, the council and the people of Sardis, not the Jews. In the first century BCE, there were not many peoples who used to sacrifice only in one place. It is surely possible that the Greeks were not acquainted with Jewish peculiarities in matters of cult and sacrifices. Since the Jews had asked for a place in which they could gather together and pray, the Greeks may have taken it to mean what that would have meant for themselves, thus adding the detail of the sacrifices, which probably constituted in their eyes an inseparable part of the worship. Dolabella, too, granted to the Jews of Ephesus the right "to make offerings for their sacrifices" (document no. 9, 11. 14-15). 1
2
In this case, we would have here a point in favor of authenticity. Had Josephus written the decree by himself, he would have mentioned prayers but with all probability would not have added Qvaiaq. As for the fact that Josephus quotes this detail without comments, Goodman points out that "Josephus was not sufficiently taken aback to comment". This is true in more than one case, and in many instances we also get the impression that he was not attentive to the content of his documents. As for the Jews' request for a place in which to gather and to pray, we understand that they are asking for a synagogue, in the modern sense of the term. But if we consider the second part of the document, where the Greeks 3
4
1
2
3
4
On the possible reasons for this fragmentariness, see below, pp. 3 9 8 , 4 0 7 - 4 0 8 . See commentary ad locum and below, pp. 434—435. "Sacred Space", p. 5. S e e below, pp. 3 6 9 - 3 7 2 .
224
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
specify the grants accorded, we find that they are not exactly identical to what the Jews had requested. A number of differences may be noticed. 1) The Jews get the right of gathering together, but only "on stated days", which may be restrictive, even if we do not know what these words meant exactly. 2) The request to "adjudicate suits among themselves" does not find expression in the second part of the decree, where we find only the general permission "to come together on stated days to do those things which are in accordance with their laws": which may, but also may not, refer also to the specific item requested by the Jews. 3) While the Jews request the possibility to have (maybe to build) their own places of prayer, the Greeks accord them "a place to be set apart... for them to build and inhabit", which is more general and in the same time unspecified. It may include also the specific right of building places of prayer, since the text adds: "such as they may consider suitable for this purpose", but it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion. In other words, the differences between the requests of the Jews and what they obtained in practice may be either only semantic, or alternatively may underlie a meaning which is difficult for us to grasp in the absence of other sources dealing with the historical background of this text. One right which is clearly spelled out, and is especially important for us since it is unattested in the documents quoted by Josephus, is the task given to the market-officials of Sardis to have "suitable food" for the Jews brought in the town (11. 19-21). This passage attests that the local Jews (how many of them, we cannot tell, but they were apparently the majority, otherwise the request would not have been brought before the Greek magitrates) did observe the Jewish dietary laws. It also attests that the local Greeks, too, were aware that the Jews had their own habits and rules in matters of food. Unlike what happens in documents no. 12, 17 and 19, here the grants accorded to the Jews may not be directly related to pressure on the part of Rome. The Roman presence, it is true, is felt in this document, but in an indirect way. It is the Jews who recall before the Greek council the fact that "their laws and freedom have been restored to them by the Roman senate and people" (11. 6-8), and this is apparently the reason why the Greeks accede to the Jewish requests. This phrase, namely, the fact that Jewish "laws and freedom have been restored to them by the Roman senate and people" is of the utmost importance for us, inasmuch as it constitutes the only instance we have in which it is stated explicitly that the Jews obtained from the Romans the return of the right to use their own laws, a right which they had lost (in theory at least) at the moment when Pompey had conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE. 5
6
5
Ut legibus et iustis et moribus suis uterentur. see R D G E , p. 15. On the meaning of this right, both in theory and in practice, see below, pp. 4 1 3 - 4 1 4 , 430-438. 6
20. Ant. XIV,
259-261
225
The restitution of "Jewish laws and freedom" to the Jews by the Roman senate probably refers to the senatus consultum issued in October 47, confirming Caesar's grants to the Jews which appear in document no. 1, where, among other items, we also find Caesar's statement to the effect that "whatever high-priestly rights or other privileges exist in accordance with their laws, these he (Hyrcanus) and his children shall possess" (document no. 1, 1. 26), and "if... any question shall arise concerning the Jews' manner of life, it is my pleasure that the decision shall rest with them" (document no. 1, 11. 2 8 - 3 0 ) . In this case, it is obvious that our document was written later than October 47. The general attitude displayed by the Greek magistrates in this document is respectful, and prima facie it may be interpreted as a possible sign that the relations between Greeks and Jews at Sardis were better than in other places also in the historical period under consideration, as they were to be later, as Kraabel points out. But we must not forget that at Sardis the Romans had already made clear to the Greeks their policy concerning the Jews. As early as 50 or 49 BCE, the local Roman proquaestor and propraetor Lucius Antonius had written to the magistrates of Sardis that he allowed the Jews to have "an association of their own... and a place of their own, in which they decide their affairs and controversies with one another" (document no. 14, 11. 4-9). Moreover, the fact that only a few years later the Jews had to bring again the same requests before the local council apparently means that something happened in the meantime, which had made necessary a new legal decision. We therefore get the impression that at Sardis, too, the situation and the relations between Greeks and Jews were not very different from those attested in other centres of Asia Minor. 7
8
7
On Caesar's permission to the Jews to live "according to their laws", see my essay "Caesar and Jewish Law", RB, 102, 1995, pp. 2 8 - 3 7 . A.T. Kraabel, "Pronoia at Sardis", Te'uda 12: Studies on the Jewish and Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, ed. B. Isaac, A. Oppenheimer, Tel Aviv 1996, pp. 7 5 - 9 6 . 8
21. Ant. X I V , 2 6 2 - 2 6 4 4 2 B C E , March 2 4
Decree issued by the people of Ephesus, in response to Roman pressure, which allows the Jews to observe the Sabbath and "to do all those things which are in accordance with their own laws". Bibliography L. Mendelssohn, "Senati Consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus", ASPL, 5, 1875, pp. 2 5 1 - 2 5 4 ; F. Rosenthal, "Die Erlasse Caesars und die Senatsconsulte in Josephus Alterth. XIV, 10 nach ihrem historischen Inhalte untersucht", MGWJ, 28, 1879, p. 177; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 148; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, pp. 168, 207; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, p. 78; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 417; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 180; A.M. Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 1291; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 119; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 117; A.M. Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 678; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 7 0 .
262
263
(x. 25) ^Pfi^iaiia 'E^eoicov. 8 7 i i 7tpmaveco<; MnvocjnXoi), ur|v6(; 'Apxeuiaiou xfj rcpoxepa, e8o£e xcp 5f|uxo, NiKavcop Eti^fuioi) eircev, eioriyriaauevcov xcov axpaxriycov. ercei evxt>xdvxcov xcov ev xfj 7i6A,ei 'Iou8atcov MdpKcp 'Iovvicp Flovxtov mcp Bpovxcp dvGimdxcp, 6n(aq dycoai xd odfJfJaxa Kai 7cdvxa 7ioicoai Kaxd xd rcdxpia atixcov e0r| ur|8ev6<; avxolq euTtoScbv yivo|ievot), 6 cxpaxrryot; 0T>ve%c6pT)oe, Se86x9ai xfj Po\)A.fj Kai xco Sf||icp, X O I J npay\iaxoq 3. ei7i:ev. eircetv P. 5. riovxiot). nouitnia) FLAM. 5. Ppoikoi) F L A M . MdpKcp... BpoikcpJ MdpKcp I o w i c p Mapicou mcp Bergmann. M. 'I. Kauttcovi vel M. 'I. MdpKot) ulco Kauttcovi Ritschl.
9. tfj Pot)X.fj Kai om. P. Lat.
5
21. Ant. XIV,
227
262-264
'Pcouaiois; dvfJKovxoc;, un8£va KcofojEoGai 7tapaxripeiv xfjv xcov oaPfJdxcov fiixepav un8£ 7ipdaaea6ai Emxiuiov, e7iitExpd(j)0ai 8' auxoic; rcdvxa T C O I E I V Kaxd xovq iSiouc; avxcov vouoix;.
10
12. £7cn;Ei;pd(|)9ai. £ 7 t i T £ T p d ( | > 0 ( D F L A M . 13. Iudaicas Lat.
Translation Decree of the people of Ephesus. In the presidency of Menophilus, on the first of the month Artemision, the following decree was passed by the people on the motion of the magistrates, and was announced by Nicanor. Whereas the Jews in the city have petitioned the proconsul Marcus Junius Brutus, son of Pontius, that they might observe their Sabbaths and do all those things which are in accordance with their native customs without interference from anyone, and the governor has granted this request, it has therefore been decreed by the senate and people that as the matter is of concern to the Romans, no one shall be prevented from keeping the Sabbath days nor be fined for so doing, but they shall be permitted to do all those things which are in accordance with their own laws.
Commentary 1. On what appears to be a kind of title, \|/fj(|)ia(xa 'E^eaicov, see document no. 19, commentary to 1. 1. 1. At Ephesus, at Pergamum and at Colophon (Notium), the president of the Greek council was called npvxaviq. His title was different in other cities. See A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 678; SEG XLI, 1991, nos. 9 3 0 - 9 3 2 , and document no. 9, commentary to 1. 1. On the tasks and duties of the npvxaviq of Ephesus, see also R. K. Sherk, "The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities III", ZPE, 88, 1991, pp. 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . No npvxaviq named Menophilus is mentioned by extant sources, but one called Meuvcov is attested at Ephesus for the year 44/43 (H. Wankel, Die Inschriften von Ephesos, IGSK, la, Bonn 1979, no. 9, 1. 26. 2. According to Juster, Les Juifs, p. 148, note 10 and Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 589, note f, the first of Artemision corresponded to March 24. On the months at Ephesus, see also A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, Munchen 1972, pp. 122-124. 2 - 3 . £8oc;£ xco 8r||Licp is the usual enactment formula which appears in the Greek decrees, along with E8O£;£ xfj pouArj Kai xco Sfpcp. See above, p. 16. It appears also in document no. 19,1. 3. 3. NiKdvcop Ei)(j)fj|io\j £i7t£v. The Latin version gives Nicanor Euphimi dixit
228
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
placuit populo. Proclamation by a herald was the usual way to communicate decrees, both in the Greek world and in Rome. See Oliver, GC, p. 18. In Claudius' letter to the Alexandrines, for example, we read: "Since, because of its numbers, not all the populace was able to be present at the reading of the most sacred letter..." (CPJ II, no. 153, col. I, 11. 2-5). 3. On the expression eior|Yr|C(X|j.£vcov xcov axpaxryyCbv, see document no. 19, commentary to 1. 4. 4. On ETcei, too, see document no. 19, commentary to 1. 5. The meaning of the term oxpaxriYoq has been examined in document no. 12, commentary to 11. 2 - 3 . 5-6. The name of the Roman magistrate, as it appears in the text given by Marcus, is a result of emendation (see the critical apparatus). That he was not the Marcus Juncus who was governor of Asia and Bithynia in 74 BCE, as Reinach thought, has been shown by Ritschl, by Mendelssohn and by Schurer, who identify him with the celebrated Marcus Brutus, praetor urbanus in 44, the leader of the conspirators against Caesar. See Loeb ed., VII, p. 590, note a. On his name and his adoption by Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus in or before 59, see J. Geiger, "The Last Servilii Caepiones of the Republic", Anc.Soc, 4, 1973, pp. 148-150 and D.R. Shackleton Bailey, "Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature", ACS, 3, 1976, pp. 129-131. On the form of his name on Greek inscriptions of Athens, Oropos, and Delos, see A.E. Raubitschek, "The Brutus Statue in Athens", Atti III Congresso Internal, gr. e lat. epig., Rome 1959, pp. 15-21. He left Italy in late August of the year 44, proceeded to Athens and moved to Macedonia toward the end of the year. In 43, upon receipt in Rome of news of Brutus' capture of Macedonia and Illyricum and his siege of C. Antonius, his command was legitimized by the senate as proconsul in Macedonia, Achaea and Illyricum on Cicero's motion. Later he probably received a maius imperium extending into Asia too. In the spring of 43 he moved eastward, continuing to gather supplies and troops in the East, and was saluted as Imperator for victories in Thrace. At the end of the year 43 he moved back to Asia to meet Cassius at Smyrna. Proconsul in Macedonia, probably with a maius imperium there and elsewhere in the East, he moved into Asia early in 42, meeting Cassius at Smyrna, and he proceeded to subdue the Lycians, all the while collecting men, money and supplies. He rejoined Cassius at Sardis, where both were acclaimed Imperatores, moved to Macedonia to meet the forces of Antony and Octavian at Philippi, and there committed suicide after his defeat in the second battle on October 23. See D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton 1950, I, pp. 422-426; II, p. 1274, note 53 and MRR, II, pp. 321-2; 328; 346-7; 361; III, p. 112. 6. Observance of the Sabbath is mentioned in other documents written in Asia Minor in republican times quoted by Josephus: see documents nos. 17 (commentary to 1. 7), 18. 7. Kaxd xd ndxpia auxcov eOn. The same expression also appears in
21. Ant. XIV,
229
262-264
document no. 1,11. 2 3 - 2 4 , and a similar one is found in no. 18,1. 15. On their meaning, see below, pp. 4 1 3 ^ 1 4 . 8. On the verb 0"\)V£%c6pr|O£, see document no. 20, 1. 14. 8-9. On the enactment formula 8£86%0ai xfj (5ot>A,f) K a i xco Sfpcp, see document no. 19, 1. 11, document no. 20, 1. 11, and p. 16. 9-10. xofj npcxYiiaxoc; 'Pcouaion; dvriKovxoc;. These words represent the real reason why this decree was passed. 11-12. This is the only testimony we have of the fact that in Roman times the Jews were fined for o b s e r v i n g the Sabbath. (As for the word £ 7 t i x i | L i i o v , see also RDGE no. 15,1. 38). 13. See above, commentary to 1. 7. This is one of the few cases we have in which the text of a Greek decree is quoted by Josephus in a rather complete fashion. We find the name of the president of the senate, which indicates the year (unfortunately, we still do not have tables of the presidents at Ephesus), the day, the standard expression "the following decree was passed by the people on the motion of the magistrates" (whose names, however, are not preserved), and the name of the herald who announced the decree. Then we find the historical background, introduced by £7i8i, and the decision, introduced by the formula S£S6x0ai (xfj Po\)A,fj K a i ) xco 8r||j.cp (the word (3o\)?if| does not appear in P, nor in the Latin version). The formal features are those common to extant Greek decrees. 1
The content displays striking similarities with that of documents nos. 19 and 20, dealing with the permission by the Greeks to the Jews to observe the Sabbath and "to do all those things which are in accordance with their native customs without interference from anyone". This makes it clear that at Ephesus, too, there had been controversies between Greeks and Jews and that the Jews had been prevented from observing their cult. The similarity goes further. In this document, too, as in the other considered above (documents nos. 17-20), the recognition of Jewish religious freedom is given only thanks to Roman intervention on Jewish behalf. First, the Jews apply to the local Roman officer (11. 4-8). Only after he has granted them their requests do they apply to the Greek council, which agrees "since the matter is of concern to the Romans" (11. 9-10). It is clear that Roman intervention and support were of extraordinary importance for the life of the Jewish community. The picture emerging from the Greek decrees quoted by Josephus attest an extremely uniform situation which is found at Delos and Paros (no. 7) Ephesus (nos. 9, 21), Sardis (no. 14, 20), Laodicea and Tralles (no. 17), Miletus (no. 18), and Halicarnassus (no. 2
1
S e e pp. 1 6 - 1 7 . On the probable background of the Greek-Jewish conflict in Asia Minor, see below, pp. 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 , 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 . 2
//. The Documents
230
Quoted by Josephus
19). In order to be entitled to their religious freedom, the Jews badly needed Roman support. This is surely one of the few instances which confirm the Roman propaganda slogan which states that "Rome governs the world for the interest of the governed peoples" (see for example Livy, XLV, 18, 1: "so that it should be clear to all nations that the forces of the Roman people brought not slavery to free peoples, but on the contrary freedom to the enslaved"). Extant sources show us that the Greeks took Roman decisions seriously. Greek decrees are found, for example, in which the enactment formula included the Romans themselves. One such instance is 8e86%0ai xfj [PouArj Kai xcp 8r)]ucp Kai xoiq 7tpay|iaxeDO|Li[evoi(; flap' f)ulv 'Pcou.aioi<;, found in Die Inschriften von Assos, ed. R. Merkelbach, IGSK, IV, Bonn 1976, no. 28, second century CE, 11. 15-16. In no. 26, 37 CE, 11. 10-11, too, we find the Romans mentioned between the council and the people of Assos: eSo^ev xf) PouArj Kai xolc, 7tpaY|iax£\K)u.£voi<; 7cap' f|ulv 'Pcoumoit; Kai xcp Sriiicp xcov Aaoicov. See also above, commentary to document no. 17, p. 198. As for the date, if we identify the Roman official with the well known Brutus, then the year in which the document was written must be 42 BCE, which is the date commonly suggested for this document since the days of Rosenthal. The year 43 BCE is excluded since in March 43 Dolabella was still active in Asia (see document no. 9). 3
Ant. X I V , 2 6 5 - 2 6 7 Josephus' C l o s i n g C o m m e n t s
265
( x . 26) rioA.A,d u£v oiJv e a x i v Kai aXXa xoiaiJxa xfj a\)YKA,r|xcp Kai xot<; auxoKpdxopoi xolq 'Pcoumcov 5oY|iaxa npoc, TpKavov Kai xo £0vo<; TIJICOV Y Y£vr||Li£va, Kai 7t6A,£aiv \]/r|(|)ia|j.axa, Kai YPaujiaxa npbq xaq nepi x c o v T i | i £ X £ p c o v 5iKaicov £7ciaxoA,d<; dvxut£(|)Covrp£va xolq TIYEUOOIV, 7C£pi c o v d n d v x c o v e£, cov 7tapax£0£i|a.£0a m o x E i m v x o l < ; dvaYvcoaoUEVOK; o\) PaaKdvcoq fijxcov x f i v ovyYpa(j)Tiv 7cdp£ o x i v . £7t£i yap EvapYfj Kai pAx7t6|H£va x£K|ir|pia 7cap£xd|i£0a xfjq 7tpoc; 'Pcojiatoix; r\\iiv fyiXiaq yevoptevriq, £7ri8£iKvuvx£<; avxa xaA-Kaiq axr\Xaiq Kai SEA/IOK; EV xcp Ka7t£xcoX,icp u£%pi vuv 5 i a | i £ v o v x a 8. ouyYpa<|)r|v. ypa(|)r|v P. £ _
266
3
"Die Erlasse Caesars", p. 177.
Ant. XIV, 265-267.
Josephus'
Closing
Comments
231
Kai 8ia^ievofJvxa, xf|v jiev rcavxcov rcapdGeoiv (hq rcepiTTfjv T E duo: Kai axepnf\ 7taprjxriGdu,r|v, o i ) 8 e v a 8' o i k a x ; f i y n a d u n v o K a i o v , 6<; ov%\ K a i rcepi xfjq Tcofiaicov fjulv 7uio"X£Uoei (j)iX,av0pco7iia<;, dxi xat>xr|v Kai 8 i d 7t?iei6vcov eK£8eic;avxo rcpoc; fJLidc; SoyLidxcov, Kai r||j.dq oi)% imoXrivj/exai 7t£pi cov e l v a i (|)au.ev d ^ n G e u e i v e£ cov ejceSeic^ajiev. xfjv p,ev ovv npoq 'Pco(iaioDc; (J)iA.iav Kai a u u | i a % i a v Kax' e K e i vovq xoi>q Kaipoix; yevoLievr|v SeSri^coKaLiev.
267
15. 6q. ax; coni. N i e s e . 16. T C i o x e t i o e i . T c i a t e i j a a i P. 16. <|)iA.av8p(07ciaq. <|)iA,iaq Hudson.
Translation Now there are m a n y other such d e c r e e s , p a s s e d by the senate and b y Roman a u t o c r a t s , relating to Hyrcanus and our p e o p l e , as w e l l as resolutions of cities and rescripts of provincial g o v e r n o r s in reply to letters o n the subject of our rights, all of w h i c h those w h o w i l l read our work w i t h o u t m a l i c e w i l l find it p o s s i b l e to take o n faith from the d o c u m e n t s w e h a v e cited. For s i n c e w e h a v e furnished clear and v i s i b l e proofs of our friendship with the Romans, indicating t h o s e d e c r e e s e n g r a v e d o n bronze pillars a n d tablets w h i c h remain to this d a y and w i l l c o n t i n u e to remain in the Capitol, I h a v e refrained from citing t h e m all as b e i n g both superfluous and disagreeable; for I cannot s u p p o s e that a n y o n e is s o stupid that h e w i l l actually refuse to b e l i e v e the statements about the friendliness of the Romans towards u s , w h e n they h a v e demonstrated this in a g o o d m a n y d e c r e e s relating to u s , or w i l l not admit that w e are m a k i n g truthful statements o n the basis of the e x a m p l e s w e h a v e g i v e n . And herein w e h a v e set forth our friendship and alliance with the Romans in t h o s e times. 1
1
"Imperators": Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 5 9 1 .
Commentary Josephus c o n c l u d e s his verbatim quotation of the d o c u m e n t s written in republican t i m e s with s o m e w o r d s of h i s o w n , w h i c h carry a clear a p o l o g e t i c m e s s a g e . These d o c u m e n t s , w h i c h are, in h i s o w n w o r d s , "decrees, resolutions of cities and rescripts of provincial g o v e r n o r s " ,
1
furnish clear and v i s i b l e
proofs of Jewish friendship (par. 266) and of the alliance (par. 267) b e t w e e n the Jews and the Romans. In fact, this is the s a m e notion w e find in what Josephus writes in his introduction to the s a m e d o c u m e n t s , w h e r e w e learn On the meaning of the verb avTi^coveiaBai, see Reynolds, Aphr., p. 4 6 .
232
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
that he quotes the documents "in order that the other peoples may not fail to recognize that both the kings of Asia and of Europe have held us in esteem and have admired our bravery and loyalty" (Ant. XIV, 186). About his intentions and purposes in quoting his documents, no contradiction is found in the different passages of the Antiquities. The main part of Josephus' concluding words are a quest for truth, the desire to be believed by his readers, even the more incredulous ones. As a means to convince his readers that the documents which he quotes are to be trusted, Josephus stresses that they are "engraved on bronze pillars and tablets which remain to this day and will continue to remain in the Capitol" (par. 266). This, too, closely echoes what he writes in the introduction: "against the decrees of the Romans nothing can be said, for they are kept in the public places of the cities and are still to be found engraved on bronze tablets in the Capitol" (Ant. XIV, 188). Josephus forgets, or perhaps does not know, that these tablets could contain only a small number of the documents he quotes, namely, one decree issued by Caesar (no. 1) and the senatus consulta: nos. 2, 3, 5 (which probably formed a single document), nos. 4 and 6 (another senatus consultum) and no. 8. All the other document he quotes never appeared on the Capitol. Josephus also forgets, or perhaps, in this case too, does not know, that eight thousand bronze tablets had been burnt in the Capitol in the fire of 69 CE. Vespasian replaced more than a third of these tablets (Suetonius, Vesp. 8, 4). Willrich, however, and later Moehring, are correct in raising the question of whether Vespasian would have cared to restore documents concerning the Jewish people, against whom he had to fight a long and expensive war. In fact, nowhere does Josephus explicitly state that he saw his documents on the Capitol. And all that we know of the Capitol, of the Aerarium, which functioned as a state archive in Rome, and of the systems used by ancient historians to collect their material, leads us to conclude that a direct consultation by Josephus of the documents displayed in the Capitol is extremely doubtful. 2
2
The matter is dealt with while dealing with the problem of Josephus' sources. See below, pp. 3 9 4 - 3 9 9 .
Ant. X V I , 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
160
(vi. 1) Toix; SE Kaxd xnv 'Aaiav 'Iot>8aio\)<; Kai doovc; f| 7cpoc; K-upr|vrj AifKm Kaxeaxev, EKOIKOW a i 7i6A,8i<;, xcov U8v 7cp6xepov (3aai?i8cov iaovouiav auxoic; 7capeaxri|i£vcov, ev 8E xco xoxe 8i' £7r/r|p£ia<; EXovxcov' xcov 'EM»Yjvcov auxoix;, (bq Kai xPW ™v iepcov d^aipeaiv 7coi8ia9ai Kai KaxaPA,a7cxeiv ev xoiq en\ Liepoix;. Tcdaxovxec; 8e KOKCOI; Kai 7tepa<; oi)8ev e u p i a K o v x e c ; xfjc; xcov 'EMifjvcov d7cav9pco7iia(;, enpEaPE-uoavxo 7cpo<; K a i a a p a Kai jxepi xovxcov. 6 5' auxoic; xfjv ai)xfiv iaox£A,£iav ESCOKEV, ypd\\faq xoiq Kaxd xdc; E7uap%iac;' cov \)7C£xdi;afj.£v xd avxiypa(|)a |iapxt>pia xfjc; 8ia9Ea£co<; f)v £a%ov i)nep fj|icov dvco9EV oi Kpaxouvx£<;. a
161
2. Kupr|vri coni. Niese. Kvprjvr|v codd. E.
Translation Now the Jews o f Asia and those to be found in Cyrenaean Libya were being mistreated by the cities there, although the kings had formerly granted them equal share ; and at this particular time the Greeks were persecuting them to the extent of taking their sacred monies away from them and doing them injury in their private concerns. And so, being mistreaded and seeing no limit to the inhumanity of the Greeks, they sent envoys to Caesar about this state of affairs. And he granted them the same equality of taxation as before, and wrote to the provincial officials letters of which we subjoin copies as evidence of the (friendly) disposition which our former rulers had toward us. 1
1
"equality of civic status": Marcus, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 1 .
Commentary The documents quoted by Josephus in the sixteenth book of his Antiquities are all written in Augustus' days, and are all Roman documents. They were issued by the emperor himself (nos. 22 and 23), by his lieutenant Agrippa (nos. 24, 25) and by two Roman governors, Norbanus Flaccus (no. 26) and Julius Antonius (no. 27).
234
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
As it happens with the documents written in republican times, here, too, before the texts themselves, Josephus gives us an introduction which provides the historical background. This introduction explains the reasons which prompted all six documents which follow, namely, the "bad treatment" of the Jews by their Greek neighbors in Asia and in Libya. According to the Jews, the Greeks had persecuted them to the extent of taking their sacred monies away from them. The Jews complained to the emperor, "and he... wrote to the provincial officials letters of which we subjoin copies...". The documents which Josephus quotes afterwards, however, nos. 22 and 23, deal only with Asian Jews, and no letter written by Augustus to Cyrene is quoted. This does not mean that such a letter did not exist. On the contrary, from the letter sent by Agrippa to Cyrene we learn that Augustus did write letters concerning the right of Cyrenean Jews to collect their sacred monies and sent them to the praetor of Libya, Flavius, and to the other officials of the province (no. 25, 11. 2-7). Josephus, however, does not quote it, and it is impossible to know if this happened by chance or forgetfulness, or if Josephus did not have the text of the letter at hand and merely knew that it existed. Moreover, a degree of inconsistence appears between this introduction to Augustus' edict and the edict itself. Josephus writes that the Jews of Asia "were being mistreated by the cities there, although the kings had formerly granted them equal share (ioovouia)". The Greeks took away the Jewish sacred monies and did them "injury in their private concerns. And so, being mistreated ... they sent envoys to Caesar about this state of affairs. And he granted them the same equality of taxation as before, and wrote to the provincial officials letters of which we subjoin copies as evidence of the (friendly) disposition which our former rulers had toward us". But the emperor's edict which follows deals only with the confirmation of the Jewish rights. It does not mention any ioovouia, nor does it deal with taxation matters. Perhaps Josephus had in mind Agrippa's letter to the council of Cyrene (no. 25), which he quotes further on and which does mention taxes which the Jews claimed they did not owe. We also do not know from where Josephus took the notion that the Hellenistic kings gave the Jews Ioovouia, which in any case should not be translated "equality of civic status". Applebaum observes that the meaning of ioovouia "changed in the course of time. Originally it appears to have denoted equality among peers, but Cleisthenes applied it to his ultra-democratic order. It was not descriptive of a constitution, but of a state of affairs, 'the ideal of a community in which the citizens had their equal share'. Appian still uses the word isonomos in this sense in the second century of the present era". 1
2
1
A s w e find in the Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 1 . S. Applebaum, "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora", CRJNT, p. 4 3 6 . 2
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
235
According to Ostwald, taovouicx is a social and political principle rather than a form of government, and it implies not only an equality of political rights but also the potential exercise of political power, often opposed to jiovcxpxicx (one-man rule), to oligarchy and to tyranny. In any case, the very existence of a Jewish embassy to Augustus is certainly historically possible. In Augustus' days, embassies from provincial towns are amply documented. They came from Mylasa, Gyarus, Corinth, Chios, Tralles, Mytilene, Eresos, Cyrene, Knidus, Sardis, Athens, Tegea, Alexandria and Tarraco. 3
4
5
22. Ant. X V I , 1 6 2 - 1 6 5 12 B C E , after March 6
Edict issued by Augustus, which accords the Jews of Asia the right to follow their own customs in accordance with the law of their fathers. It allows the observation of the Sabbath and of the day of preparation for it from the ninth hour, and specifies penalties for those who steal Jewish sacred books or monies. Bibliography I. Goldschmidt, De ludaeorum apud Romanos Condicione, Halis Saxonae 1866, p. 15; P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptispublicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 110; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 151, 3 8 2 - 3 ; Dora Askovith, The Toleration of the Jews Under Julius Caesar and Augustus, N e w York 1915, pp. 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 , 172, 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 ; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, III, Stuttgart-Berlin 1923, pp. 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 ; C. Roberts, T.C. Skeat, A . D . Nock, "The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos", HTR, 2 9 , 1936, p. 88; H. Vogelstein, Rome, Philadelphia 1940, p. 26; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton 1950, I, p. 4 4 7 and II, p. 1293, note 52; Kathleen M.T. Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia in the Reign of Augustus", Historia, 7, 1958, p. 320; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 308; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, pp. 1 2 7 - 8 ; S. Applebaum, "Jewish Status at Cyrene in the Roman Period", PP, 19, 1964, p. 3 0 1 ; G.W.
3
M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian Democracy, Oxford 1969, pp. 97, 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 , 113, 116; idem, From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law, Berkely 1986, p. 27. See also V. Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World, N e w York 1973, pp. 88-93. See E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970, p. 308. See F. Millar, "The Emperor, the Senate and the P r o v i n c e s " , 5 6 , 1 9 6 6 , pp. 1 6 3 - 1 6 4 . On the w h o l e procedure, see also idem, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977, p. 257. On texts illustrating the correspondence between the emperor and subjects see also W. Williams, "Epigraphic Texts of Imperial Subscripts: a Survey", ZPE, 66, 1986, pp. 1 8 1 - 2 0 7 . 4
5
236
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Bowersock, "C. Marcius Censorinus, legatus Caesaris", HSPh, 6 8 , 1964, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 1 0 ; S. Zeitlin, "The Edict of Augustus Caesar in Relation to the Judaeans of Asia", JQR, 5 5 , 1 9 6 4 - 5 , pp. 1 6 0 - 1 6 3 ; F. Millar, "The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces", JRS, 5 6 , 1966, p. 161; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 8 6 - 8 8 ; O. Robinson, "Blasphemy and Sacrilege in Roman Law", The Irish Jurist, 8, 1 9 7 3 , p. 357; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr), in: The Seleucid Period in Erelz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, p. 3 7 6 ; Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, pp. 6 6 - 6 7 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 143; F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977, pp. 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, pp. 4 1 7 ^ 1 8 ; Daniela Piattelli, "An Enquiry into the Political Relations between R o m e and Judaea from 161 to 4 BCE", ILR, 14, 1979, p. 2 1 9 ; A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 6 8 5 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 8 8 , 1 9 8 1 , p. 184; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp. 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 ; A . M . Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives dans PEmpire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 1292; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 113, note 23; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 119, note 4 7 and p. 121; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 6 7 8 ; J. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia 1989, pp. 5 7 9 - 5 8 1 ; G. Stemberger, "Die Juden im Romischen Reich: Unterdriickung und Privilegierung einer Minderheit", Christlicher Antijudaismus und Judischer Antipaganismus: Ihre Motive und Hintergrunde in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, ed. H. Frohnhofen, Hamburg 1990, p. 10; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1 9 9 1 , pp. 15, 18; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-1I7CE), Edinburgh 1996, pp. 2 6 8 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 2 - 4 .
162
(vi. 2) Kaioap ZePaoxoc; dp^iepeix; SruxapxiKfjq ec;ODciaq * Xeyei. erceiSfi xo eGvo<; xo xcov 'IouSaicov ex>x&pioxov evpeGri oi) LIOVOV ev xco eveoxcoxi icaipcp aXXa Kai ev xco 7cpoyeyevr|Lievcp, Kai jidAaaxa e m xov euofj naxpoq ai)xoKpdxopo<; Kaiaapoq, npbq xov 5 8fjfiov xov 'Pcoumcov, 6 xe dp%iepei)<; auxcov TpKa163 voq, e8o£e uoi Kai xco e|icp GD|i(k)u?iicp uexd opKcoaoaiaq, yvcouTi Sfpov Pcojiaicov xoix; 'IouSaiotx; XpfjoGat xoi<; i8ioi<; eGiajiou; Kaxd xov rcdxpiov auxcov vouov, KaGax; e%pcovxo e m TpKavoi) dp%- 10 lepecoc; Geoi) \)\|/ioxoi), xd xe * iepd elvai ev aovXiq Kai 2. 5. 6. 6-7. 11.
post e^ouaiac; lucunam statuit Naber. in marg. xi Lat. ccuTOKpdtTOpoc]. dictatori Lat. 'Pcoumtov. 'iouSaicov P. K a i xco ... 'Pcouaioov. et senatui cum sententia populi Romani Lat. t d xe i e p d . i e p d xp^iiam ex Lat. coni. Richards et Shutt.
22. Ant. XVI, 162-165
237
dva7U£|i7C£cy9ai ciq 'lepoo6Xv[ia Kai d7coSiSoo6ai xoic; djco8ox£i3oiv T£poaoA.i3)icov, eyyvaq XE \ir\ ouoXoyelv avxovq EV ad(3(3aaiv fj xfj npb avxf\q napa164 aK£\)fj and copaq Evaxnt;. Eav 8E xiq (|)copa9fj 15 K?i£7cxcov xd<; lEpdq (3i(3X,o\)(; auxcov r\ xd i£pd %pf|uaxa EK XE oa(3(3ax£io\) EK XE dv8pcovo<;, Eivai ai)xov lEpoaD^ov Kai xov piov amofj £V£%9fivai eiq xo 165 8r||j.6oiov xcov Pco|j.aicov. xo XE n/f|())ia|ia xo SOGEV |ioi i)ri ai)xcov vntp xf\q E\if\q E-uaEPEiac; r\q E%CO 2 0 npoq navxaq dvGpcojcoix; Kai imEp rdi'oi) MapKiou KrivGCOpivei), Kai xofjxo xo 8idxay|j,a KEA,EIJCO dvaXEGfjvai EV £7Ciorip.oxdxcp xo7ccp xco yEvnGEvxi |ioi TJTCO xofj KOIVOD xfj<; 'Aoiaq £vapy<£i y>pfi. £dv 8E xiq jcapapfj xi xcov 7tpo£ipr||j.£vcov, Scoasi 8IKT|V oi) |J.E- 25 xpiav. 13. 'iEpoaoA/uuxov. et sacraria eorum inuiolata permanere et pecunias ab eis ad hierosolyma transmissas reddi custodibus pecuniarum. 13. u/f) om. P. 17. aaPPateiou. cappcmou P: aaPPaOioi) A M . dvSpcovoc; codd. dapwvoc; (Hebraice) coni. Reland, Marcus (Loeb ed. viii, p. 272), Oliver (GC, p. 5 8 0 ) . 26. e v 'Ayieuprj o m . Lat. 'Ayicupri Scaliger. dpyupfj PM. dpy^pfji A. dpyupn W. e v 'AyKiipri Loeb ed., p. 2 7 4 . evapy<ei y>p
Translation Caesar Augustus, Pontifex Maximus with tribunician power, proclaims. Since the Jewish people has been found well disposed to the Roman people not only at the present time but also in time past, and especially in the time of my father the autocrat Caesar, as has their high priest Hyrcanus, it has been decided by me and my council under oath, with the consent of the Roman people, that the Jews may follow their own customs in accordance with the law of their fathers, just as they followed them in the time of Hyrcanus, high priest of the Most High God, and that their sacred monies shall be inviolable and may be sent up to Jerusalem and delivered to the treasures in Jerusalem, and that they need not give bond on the Sabbath or on the day of preparation for it (Sabbath Eve) after the ninth hour. And if anyone is caught stealing their sacred books or their sacred monies from a synagogue or a meeting 1
2
1
"emperor": Marcus, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 3 . In a private communication, Prof. Hanna M. Cotton suggested to me that here w e should translate: "namely, that". 2
238
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
3
room , he shall be regarded as sacrilegious, and his property shall be confiscated to the public treasury of the Romans. As for the resolution which was offered by them in my honour concerning the piety which I show to all men, and on behalf of Gaius Marcius Censorinus, I order that it and the present edict be set up in the most conspicuous (part of the temple) assigned to me by the Koinon of Asia with plainly visible . If anyone transgresses any of the above ordinances, he shall suffer severe punishment. 4
3
This translation follows the manuscripts, which give dv8ptovo<;. Marcus and Oliver, w h o follow the reading suggested by Reland, dapcovoq, translate "or an ark (of the Law)" (Marcus, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 3 ; Oliver, GC, p. 5 8 1 ) . This translation follows the reading suggested by Oliver, G C , p. 5 8 1 . Marcus translates "in Ancyra" (Loeb ed., VIII, p. 275). 4
Commentary 1-2. The number of the tribunicial power is missing in all the Greek manuscripts, and is preserved only in the margin of the Latin version, where we find XI. The eleventh tribunicial power of Augustus points to 13/12 BCE. A more precise date may be given on the basis of the title dp/iepetx; given to Augustus, (more often dpxiepeix; fieyioxoc;: see Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 127), which corresponds to the Latin pontifex maximus. The title was given to Augustus on March 6, 12 BCE (hoc die Caesar Pontifex Maximus factus est: see the sources cited by V. Ehrenberg, A.H.M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Oxford 1955 , p. 47). This date, March 6, 12 BCE, is therefore the terminus post quern for this document. The titles which appear in this document are partial if compared, for example, with those found in the so called Cyrene edicts of Augustus (GC, no. 8, 7/6 BCE). In our text we do not find the title auxoicpdxcop preceding Caesar, nor Qeox* voq or moq, son of the god, which appears in the letters written by Augustus to Knidos (RDGE no. 67, 1. 2 = RGE no. 103: see Millar, The Emperor, p. 443), to the Eresians (GC no. 4, 11. 12-13), to the Alexandrians (GC no. 5, 11. 1-3) and to Sardis (GC no. 7, 1. 22). We also do not find the title vnaxoq, which, however, rarely appears (it is found in the letter of Augustus to the Knidians: GC no. 6, 11. 2—4). Although inscriptions and papyri display variations in Augustus' titles, is not impossible that in our text other titles did originally appear, which were successively dropped during the process of transmission. On the titles of the emperors appearing in the extant praescriptiones of their edicts, see Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 29. 2
2. The verb Xeyei, "declares" or "proclaims", is the technical verb which always appears in imperial edicts, following the titulature. It appears as early as the edict issued by Octavian and Antony after the battle of Philippi
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
239
(Xeyovov. Aphr. no. 7, 1. 1) and also appears, in extra large letters, in the so-called edicts from Cyrene (GC nos. 8,1. 3; 9,1. 41; 10,1. 56; 11,1. 63; 12,1. 73). This usage continues throughout the imperial period, ^eyei also appears in edicts issued by Germanicus (GC no. 17, 1. 29, 19 CE), by Claudius (GC no. 26,1. 2), by Hadrian (GC no. 88 A, 1. 4, 136 CE), by an unknown emperor (GC no. 186, 1. 2), by Severus and Caracalla (where it appears in the plural form, Xeyovaiv, GC no. 252, 1. 18), by Caracalla (GC no. 269, 1. 5) and by Severus Alexander in 222 CE (GC no. 275, 1. 4). See above, p. 19. 2. In her examination of imperial edicts, Margareta Benner calls this "the £7cei8r| clause". The reasons which prompted the writing of edicts is often introduced by 87t£i8f|i See for example GC no. 8, 1. 4, 7/6 BCE. 2 - 6 . The good disposition of'the Jews toward the Romans refers in all probability to the military help offered by Hyrcanus II and Antipater to Caesar during his campaign in Egypt in 47 BCE, the importance of which emerges from Caesar's decree concerning the Jews preserved in document no. 1: "Whereas the Jew Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, both now and in the past... has shown loyalty and zeal toward our state... and in the recent Alexandrian war came to our aid with fifteen hundred soldiers, and being sent by me to Mithridates, surpassed in bravery all those in the ranks" (11. 12-20). In document no. 6, too, which was written three years later, in 44 BCE, we read: "It is fitting that we too should be mindful of this and provide that there be given by the senate and people of Rome to Hyrcanus and the Jewish people and the sons of Hyrcanus a token of gratitude worthy of their loyalty to us and of the benefits which they have conferred upon us" (11. 5-9). Augustus' mention of the help received by Caesar from the Jews is also possibly referred to in C.Ap, II, 61, where we read: "We have also the senate and its decrees and the letters of Caesar Augustus which attest our services". As for the military help of the Jews to the Romans, it should not be forgotten that in more recent times the ships sent by Herod to Agrippa in 14 BCE had certainly been appreciated, in spite of the fact that they were of no practical help (see below, p. 269). The Romans were sensible to demonstrations of loyalty, especially when they took the form of military aid. See above, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 , 46^17. 4 - 5 . The adoption of Octavian as Caesar's son was confirmed in 43 BCE by a curiate law (App., Bell.Civ. 3, 94; Dio, XLVI, 47, 5). See MRR, II, p. 336. On the title cruxoKpdxcop which precedes the name of Caesar, Cassius Dio states that in 45 BCE the senate voted to Caesar the Dictator the title of imperator as a proper name (XLIII, 44, 2-3). It was, he says, something distinct alike from the traditional imperatorial salutation and from the designation of a commander in possession of imperium: it was precisely the title of imperial power borne by the emperor in his own day. Further, the title was to pass to the sons and to the descendants of Caesar. Suetonius, too (Divus Julius 76, 1) records the bestowal of the praenomen imperatoris
240
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
on the Dictator. It is difficult, Syme observes, to argue that Suetonius and Dio do not mean the same thing (R. Syme, "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature", Historia, 7, 1958 = Roman Papers, I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, pp. 365-368). See also MRR, II, p. 306. As for the fact that Caesar is not called Qeoq, as we find, for example, in Augustus' letter to Knidos (RDGE no. 67, 1. 2 = RGE no. 103, 6 BCE), it is not necessarily intentional as Oliver suggests: "from Geofj 'IouAAou, impossible for a Jew, to oruTOKpdTopoc; Kaiaapoi;" (Oliver, GC, p. 581). This omission does not represent a unique case. The document dealing with the right of asylum of the temple of Aphrodites at Aphrodisias, too, mentions Caesar as SiKxdxcop omitting Qeoc,: Aphr. no. 35,11. 2 - 3 , from late republican or Augustan times. 6-7. On Hyrcanus II (103-30 BCE) see above, document no. 1, commentary to 1. 5. 7 - 8 . eSo^e um Kai TCO £|a.co cxi)|j.po\)?u.cp IIETCX opKcouooiaq, yvcouri 5f|jj,o'u. This expression echoes that appearing in decrees issued by Roman generals in the republican age. Amarelli observes that the Romans did not make any important decision without a consilium, especially when the real power of decision belonged to a single person (F. Amarelli, Consilia Principum, Napoli 1983, p. 49). Augustus' advisory council is also mentioned in the fifth edict from Cyrene (GC no. 12, 1. 87). At the beginning, Augustus used as his advisers the consuls, one from each of the other magistracies, and fifteen other senators chosen by lot. A change took place in 13 CE, which removed the selection by lot, added members of the imperial family and allowed the emperor to choose further members. The decisions reached by this body were supposed to have the force of senatus consulta (Dio, LVI, 28, 2-3). See J. Crook, Consilium Principis: Imperials Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian, Cambridge 1955, pp. 14-15 and Millar, The Emperor, p. 268. On the reasons behind the creation of Augustus' consilium, see Amarelli, Consilia Principum, pp. 102-106. 8-10. xovc, 'IouSaioix; %pfjoGai TOI<; i5ioi<; EGIOU.OI<; KOTO; TOV TcaTpiov a\)Tcov v6|j.ov. This expression, along with cmox; VOUOK; TE Kai EGEOIV Kai SiKaioic; TOIC; i5iotc; %pcovTai and similar ones (see for example RDGE no. 18, 11. 49, 91), corresponded to the Latin ut legibus et iustis et moribus suis uterentur. See Sherk, RDGE, p. 15. 10. KaGcb<; E^pcovTO eni TpKavofJ. See documents nos. 1,11. 2 6 - 3 0 and 5, 11. 31-36. 10-11. The title "(high) priest of the most high God" was used by the Hasmoneans since the reign of Hyrcanus I. In the Testament of Moses 6:1, in a passage commonly taken to refer to the Hasmoneans, we find a "prediction" that the Judaeans will be ruled by kings who will be called "priests of the most high God", and in Megillat Ta'anit, at 3 Tishre, we read that on that date "the mention was removed from documents". The Hebrew scholion to
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
241
this passage, the earliest witness to which is the citation in the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashana 18b, by a master who flourished in the early fourth century, explains that documents used to contain date formulas containing divine names, such as "year such and such of Yohanan high priest of the most high God". Similar date formulas are attested also in I Mace, 13: 4 1 - 4 2 and 14: 2 7 - 4 5 . See D.R. Schwartz, "On Pharisaic Opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy" (Hebr.), Nation and History: Studies in the History of the Jewish People, , I, ed. M. Stern, Jerusalem 1983, p. 42 = idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, Tubingen 1992, p. 47, and D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, Tubingen 1994, pp. 5 3 - 5 5 . The expression 0E6<; vyioxoc, is often used referring to the Jewish Divinity in the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora. We find it in Jewish inscriptions from Alexandria, Delos, Cos, Phrygia, Pisidia, Ankara and North Galatia (see Trebilco, Jewish Communities, pp. 133-140) and in literary works like the Septuagint, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Joseph and Aseneth. Philo, too, uses the term \)\|/ioxo<; when he quotes from the Septuagint addressing non-Jews (Leg. 278 and In Flacc. 46) and when he deals with Augustus' policy towards the Jews (Leg. 157 and 317). Non-Jewish sources, too, use the term i)\|/io"TO<; to refer to the Jewish Divinity. See for example Celsus (Stern, GLAJJ, II, no. 375, 71 and 1163), Julian (Stern, GLAJJ, II, no. 486 b) and Lactantius (Stern, GLAJJ, II, no. 553). It was, however, by no means a special definition for the Jewish Divinity. The same term was also used to define pagan gods. "In the Roman Empire", Trebilco observes (Jewish Communities, p. 128), "there was a distinct trend, prepared for by Greek philosophy, towards the worship of one god as the supreme deity. In parallel with the reality of emperors with almost universal powers, local deities seemed insufficient. To be worth honouring they needed to have world-wide authority. Thus the epithet 'the Highest' was used for a number of pagan deities throughout the Roman Empire: for Zeus but also for Sabazius, Men, Attis, Poseidon, Eshmun, Eshmun-Melkart, for a local Baal in Syria and for Isis in Egypt". See C. Colpe, "Hypsistos", Der Kleine Pauly, II, 1967, cols. 1291-2; E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970, p. 241; M. Simon, "Theos Hypsistos", Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren Oblata ab collegis, discipulis, amicis, collegae magistro amico congratulantibus, Leiden 1972, pp. 372-385, and the works of Cook, Nock, Kraabel, Cormack, Tatscheva-Hitova and Peppers quoted by Trebilco, Jewish Communities, pp. 238-239, notes 1-8. See also A.B. Forsen, "A Rediscovered Dedication to Zeus Hypsistos: EM 3221", Tyche, 5, 1990, pp. 9 - 1 2 , and Julia Ustinova, "The Thiasoi of Theos Hypsistos in Tanais", History of Religion, 31, 1991, pp. 159-165 and especially p. 159, notes 40, 48. Roberts et al„ "The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos", p. 88, observe that in our document, "if the wording is due to Augustus, he was being as complimentary to the Jews as possible; the alternative would have been tov CXUTCOV Geoif".
242
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
11. xd TE iepd Eivai. Something is missing in this phrase; most probably, as Richards, Shutt suggest, we should read xpfjuma after iepd: G.C. Richards, R.J.H. Shutt, "Critical Notes on Josephus' Antiquities", CQ, 31, 1937, p. 174. 12. Augustus' permission to the Jews to collect their sacred monies and to send them to Jerusalem is attested also by Philo, who writes: "He (Augustus) knew too that they (the Jews) collect money for sacred purposes from their first-fruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices" (Leg. 156). See Rabello, "The Legal Condition", pp. 7 1 1 - 2 . 13-14. eyyvaq 6uoA,oyeiv is a technical expression for giving security or a guarantee. Marcus interprets it as "giving security that one intends to appear before a court". (On the Jewish prohibition of holding court on the Sabbath, see Schurer, The History, II, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, Edinburgh 1979, p. 223. See also Schurer, The History, III, p. 121, note 58). According to Barclay (Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 270, note 29), however, "this expression could relate to many kinds of commercial deals, and is not necessarily a bond to appear in court (as in the Loeb translation)". 14-15. xfj npo ouxfjc; TtapaoKevfj and copaq evdxnc;. Exemption from appearing in court on the Sabbath possibly already appears in I Mace., 10:34 (see Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives", p. 1299), and the permission to observe the Sabbath is mentioned in documents nos. 17, 18, 19, 21, written between 46 and 42 BCE. In Augustus' edict, however, we find for the first time the important clause that the same right has also to be enjoyed "on the day of preparation for it after the ninth hour". The ancient day was divided conventionally into twelve hours between sunrise and sunset. Since a day's length varied with the seasons, so would the length of an hour in a given season. The ninth hour corresponded to 3:46 and 30 seconds PM in the summer, and to 2:13 and 30 seconds PM in the winter. See J.E. Sandys, A Companion to Latin Studies, New York-London 1963, p. 201.1 wish to thank Prof. Zeev Rubin for this reference. 16-17. On fixed money contributions sent by the diaspora Jews to Jerusalem, see SchUrer, The History, III, 1, pp. 147-149. 16-17. One of the functions of the synagogue was that of repository for communal funds. In the diaspora, contributions to the Temple were collected annually, kept at the local synagogue until their transfer to a central regional bank, and then forwarded to Jerusalem. See Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio (supra, commentary to 11. 10-11), pp. 236-7 and L.I. Levine, "Ancient Synagogues: A Historical Introduction", Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L. I. Levine, Jerusalem 1981, p. 3. 17. &K xe oaPPaxeiou eic xe dv5pcovo<;. The Codex Palatinus gr. no. 14 gives aaPfJaxiou and AM have oa^PaGiou, hence the reading oaPPaxeiou given both by Niese and by Marcus. The second place is called eic xe dv8ptovo<; in all manuscripts, hence the reading eic xe dv5pcovo<; given by
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
243
Niese, and Schalit's translation t y n n m m IK n t a a n m n n . Zeitlin maintains instead that a single place is mentioned here. "I conjecture that dvSpcovot; is used to explain the word oaPPaieiou. In order to avoid confusion between the two terms, odppaxa and aa|3(3axeiov, the word dvSpcovoq was added after oaPPaTEiou to indicate that it refers to the place where Judaeans assembled on the Sabbath day for the reading of the Torah and where the sacred books and money were kept" (Zeitlin, "The Edict of Augustus Caesar", p. 162). A different explanation is suggested by Reland, according to whom dvSpcov is a mistake for the Hebrew word ]riK, a view shared by Marcus and by Oliver, both of whom translate "an Ark (of the Law)" (Marcus, Loeb ed., VII, p. 273; Oliver, JGC, p. 580). There seems however to be no reason to change the reading, of the manuscripts. Goodenough observes that 'aron was not used for a synagogue ark until medieval times (E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, IV, New York 1953, p. 116. See also Wikgren's note, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 273, note c). Safrai, too, observes that the Tannaitic sources do not use the term 'aron to denote an item of furniture placed in the sacred part of the synagogue (Z. Safrai, "Dukhan, Aron and Teva: How was the Ancient Synagogue Furnished?", Ancient Synagogues in Israel, ed. Rachel Hachlili, Oxford 1989, p. 72). As for the meaning of the word dvSpcov, a complete survey is offered by Roberts et al., "The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos", p. 4 7 - 4 8 : "dvSpcov is employed in the papyri to denote any livingroom in a house, which may have as many as four;... elsewhere dv5pcov is used of a corridor by Plin., and of a diningroom by Plut.... In lists of leases, it is repeatedly used with the meaning of banqueting hall.... In an inscription from Dura-Europos, written in 54 A.D., we find an dv5pcov, and Hopkins in his commentary suggests that it defines more clearly the iepov.... It may be suggested that the dvSpcov is not the iepov but one of the buildings in the precint. So at Segesta an dvSpecov appears to have been one of the buildings in a precint.... In an inscription from Gerasa a gift is mentioned for an dvSpcov... and from the fact of its having been restored as a benefaction to the kome, it is clear that it was some sort of room for common social purposes.... In Jos., AJ, 16, 164 dvSpcov is a room used in connection with the synagogue". 17-18. e l v a i a m o v iepoou^ov. Juster observes that since in Roman law a theft was considered a sacrilegium when perpetrated in a sacred place, this passage may be interpreted as indicating that Jewish synagogues were considered in Augustus' days as sacred places (Les Juifs, p. 383). On synagogues in Rome in Augustus' days, see A. Momigliano, "I nomi delle prime 'Sinagoghe' romane e la condizione giuridica della comunita in Roma sotto Augusto", RM1, 6, 1931-2, pp. 283-292. Explicit sources, however, are difficult to find. In Egypt, a grant of asylum to a synagogue is attested by an inscription written in Hellenistic times and possibly confirmed in 4 7 - 4 4 BCE: "King Ptolemy Euergetes (proclaimed) the proseuche asylon" (W. Horbury,
244
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, Cambridge 1992, no. 125, 145-116 BCE. See commentary on p. 214. See also F. Dunand, "Droit d'asile et refuge dans les temples en Egypte lagide", Hommage a la memoire de Serge Sauneron, 1927-1976, II, ed. J. Vercoutter, Le Caire 1979, pp. 77-97). According to one of the possible interpretations, land belonging to the Jewish synagogue, too, was called iepd yfj in a land-survey at Arsinoe in the late second century BCE (CPJ I, no. 134, 1. 14. See commentary on p. 249): alternative interpretations, however, are also possible, and in any case we do not know how frequent these cases may have been. Quod cum ita sit, Mendelssohn would possibly say, coniecturis non idulgebimus. The meaning of the adjective iepocutax;, too, is not easy to define, nor its history. A Greek law of iepoo'uAaa, too, seems impossible to reconstruct. See E. Cohen, "Theft in Athenian Law", Munchener Beitr. Pap. und Ant. Rechtsgeschichte, 74, 1983, pp. 99-115. There was a general conception of iepoouAAa as theft of sacred property, but the borderline between this crime and dae(3eia and KA07if| was not precisely defined. See SEG XXXIII, 1983, no. 1575bis. The theft of profane objects from sacred places, too, was apparently considered as a sacrilegium in the lex Julia peculatus issued in Augustus' days, but we should notice that the lex Julia dealt only with money belonging to the Roman people, while our edict mentions money belonging to the Jews. 18-19. Juster suggests that the confiscation was originally only an accessory penalty in Augustus' edict, and that a main penalty originally appeared in the text (Les Juifs, p. 383), but we have no means of reconstructing what may have been the original reading. Confiscation of the property as a means of punishment also appears in an inscription from Gythium, preserving a portion of the local lex sacra: "Let him account to the city for the hire of the players and the administration of the sacred funds... and, if he is convicted of falsifying the record, let him be found guilty of peculation and let him no longer hold any public office and let his property be confiscated" (GC no. 15, col. I, 11. 13-15), and in a Roman document from Myra on import and export taxes (GC no. 125). Confiscation of property, total or partial, frequently accompanied relegation, and normally deportation, which involved loss of citizenship. Other penalties for sacrileges mentioned in Roman law were in metallum damnantur. See F. Gnoli, "Rem privatam de sacro surripere. Contributo alio studio della repressione del 'sacrilegium' in diritto romano", SDH J, 40, 1974, pp. 166-7. Interesting testimonies are cited by Robinson: "Quintilian stresses that Sacrilegium est rem sacram de templo surripere (Inst.Or. VII, 3, 10). Livy informs us that in 204 BCE Quintus Fabius moved in the senate that a search should be made for the monies carried off from the temple of Proserpine, that double the original sum should be replaced, and that a solemn expiation should be performed (29, 19). We hear of a senator being degraded for, among other things, pillaging
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
245
the sacred treasures of Aesculapius in Cyrene (Tac, Ann., 14, 18). Marcian in an oddy phrased paragraph makes liable under the lex Julia peculatus one who steals sacred or religious monies, and then repeats himself: 'But if any one should take anything given to an immortal god he shall be liable to the penalty of "peculation"; provincial governors were to search out sacrilegious men along with brigands and kidnappers and punish them; those guilty of sacrilege were to be punished extra ordinem' (h.t.4). Ulpian writing on the proconsulate writes that many had been thrown to the beasts or burned or hanged for sacrilege, but such punishments were suited to those who had broken into temples under cover of dark, while the mines or deportation, depending on status; were adequate for a petty sacrilegious theft (h.t.7 [6]). Paul also gave the penalty as capital; he only held as fully sacrilegious those who pillaged publica sacra, but those who assailed private holy places or unguarded shrines, while more than thieves, deserved to be treated as less than sacrilegious men (D.48, 13, 11 [9])" (O. Robinson, "Blasphemy and Sacrilege in Roman Law", The Irish Jurist, 8, 1973, pp. 356-363). We must also recall that in Hellenistic times those who violated the provisions of the king were regarded too as guilty of impiety: see for example C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, New Haven 1934, no. 70, 11. 14-15, where we read: "that anyone who should violate any of the above provisions should be held guilty of impiety". 19-21. This particular decree issued by the Jews in honor of Augustus "concerning the piety" shown by him to all men has not survived, but we have many examples of honorary decrees issued by Greek cities in honor of Augustus. See below, pp. 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . 2 1 - 2 2 . A Jewish honorary decree in honor of Censorinus has not survived, but honorary decrees in honor of local Roman officials were very common. See below, p. 251. As for the identity of Censorinus, the date of the document, 12 BCE (according to the note appearing in margin of the text in the Latin version), rules out the possibility that the he may be identified with the one who was consul in 8 BCE, and proconsul of Asia in 2/3 CE (see Wikgren, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 273, note d; Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 128, note 9; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 143, and Baumann, Rom und die Juden, pp. 260-26). Gaius Marcius Censorinus may instead be identified with the magistrate who was left in the East by Agrippa in 14/13 BCE after the Bosporan rebellion. Bowersock suggests that though officially legatus Caesaris, he was in fact Agrippa's subordinate (G.W. Bowersock, "C. Marcius Censorinus, legatus Caesaris", HSPh., 68, 1964, pp. 207-210). See also R. Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province a V epoque Augusteenne: Contribution a I'histoire administrative et sociale du Principate, Paris 1975, pp. 416, 518; R.K. Sherk, "Roman Galatia: The Governors from 25 B.C. to A.D. 114", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 1036, and PIR , V, 2, 1983, no. 222, pp. 177-178. Another honorary decree was issued in Asia in his honor by the koinon of Asia (Ann.Ep. 1906, 2
246
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
no. 1, from Sinope, which calls Censorinus T t p e o p e u x f i v Kaiaapoq). OGIS no. 466 from Pergamum and SEG II, no. 549 from Mylasa, too, are inscriptions in honor of Censorinus, from which we learn that he was called Savior and Benefactor after his death, and that local games called Censorineia were established in his honor. See Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia", p. 326. As for the Jews, Leah Roth suggests that the reason why the Jews issued an honorific decree in honor of Censorinus was the fact that Censorinus had taken care of carrying out Agrippa's orders concerning Asian Jews issued in 14 BCE. See Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews, p. 86 and the bibliography quoted on the relationship between Censorinus and Agrippa. 22. The term 8idxayu.a is the usual technical designation for official decrees, both in republican times (see, for example, document no. 2, commentary to 1. 15) and in the imperial age. See GC no. 2, 1. 1. Other more rare Greek terms used to translate the Latin edictum are jr.p6ypau|ia and £7UKpi|j,a. See Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 62. On 7r.p6axay(ia, see R. Katzoff, "Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: the Role of the Prefect", ANRW, 11, 13, 1980, p. 819. 23. The verb Ke?iei>co is used in republican times (see document no. 1, commentary to 1. 28) and in the imperial age, along with 0eAco (GC no. 2,11. 14, 22). KzXevvy appears in the documents quoted by Josephus (nos. 25 and 26), and in documents written in imperial times. See GC nos. 2, 1. 14; 16, 1. 17; 19, col. IV, 1. 89, and col. V, 1. 88; 38, 1. 4; 56,1. 4; 154,1. 14; 186,1. 18, and Die Inschriften von Ephesos, ed. H. Wankel, IGSK, I a, Bonn 1979, no. 17, 1. 60. On the difference between KeAeuco and dpecKei in imperial edicts, see Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 58. 2 4 - 2 5 . The expression d v a x e 0 f j v a i e v e7Ciorpoxdxcp XOTCCO appears also in a treaty between Sardis and Ephesos (for three times): d v a y p d \ | / a i 8 e Kai ei<; GXT\kaq A,i0iva<; xf|vSe xfjv ai)v0r|Kr|v Kai axfjoai e v uev 'E^eacoi e v xcoi xfj<; 'Apxefii8o<; iepcoi e v xcoi eTciarpcoxdxcoi xo7ccoi, e v 8 e Z d p S e c i v e v xcoi xofj Aibq iepco[i] e v TCOI eTuarpcoxdxcoi xorccoi, e v 8 e n e p y d u x o i 6v d v aixf|acovxai Kaxd KOIVOV a i noXeiq e7uor|[|i6]xaxov xonov (Die Inschriften von Ephesos [supra, commentary to 1. 23], no. 7, 98/97 or 94/93 BCE, col. II, 11. 3 0 - 3 4 ) . Similarly, we find Kai dvayp[dn/a]vxa<; eic; axf|A,ev A,ei)KofJ ?I10OD TO \|/r|(j)io|na x 6 8 e { K a i } 0 e i v a i ei<; xov eTci(|)aveoxaxov Ttap' ai)xoi<; i m d p x o v x a XOTCOV in Die Inschriften von Assos, ed. R. Merkelbach, IGSK, IV, Bonn 1976, no. 11a, 8 0 - 7 0 BCE, 11. 33-36. 2 5 - 2 6 . xco yevn0evxi u o i vnd xov Koivofj xf\q 'Aciaq e v a p y < e i y>pf]. PM gives the reading dpyDpfj, A dpyupfji and W dpyupn. The word is surely corrupt, but Scaliger's emendation e v AyKijprj, which is accepted by Niese, by Marcus (Loeb ed., VII, p. 275) and by Baumann, Rom und die Juden, pp. 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 , was rejected already by Mommsen as historically impossible (see Wikgren, Loeb ed., VIII, p 274, note a). See also Juster, Les
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
247
Juifs, p. 151, note 3. The temple of Augustus and Rome at Ancyra, whose construction had begun under Augustus, was probably inaugurated only in 19/20 CE. In fact, it was built by the iepaod|i£voi of the Galatians, not by the koinon of Asia. See S. Mitchell, "Galatia under Tiberius", Chiron, 16, 1986, p. 33, and H. Halfmann, "Zur Datierung und Deutung der Priesterliste am Augustus-Roma-Tempel in Ankara", Chiron, 16, 1986, pp. 3 5 - 4 2 . Oliver is probably correct in suggesting "a palaeographically easier emendation £vapY<et Y>p in GC no. 275, col. II, 1. 23" (Oliver, GC, p. 581). As for the location of the temple, Mommsen's suggestion that Augustus' temple at Pergamum is meant here is largely accepted in contemporary scholarship since Viereck's days (Viereck, Sermo graecus, p. 110). See Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 113, note 23. The temple offered to Augustus and to the deified Roma at Pergamum by the koinon of Asia (on which see A.D. Macro, "The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, pp. 681-2) was also chosen as the place in which a decree issued by the koinon of Asia concerning the new provincial calendar had to be published, together with the letter of the Roman proconsul which had given instructions about it (RDGE no. 65, 9 BCE = RGE no. 101). See Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 447; II, p. 1293, note 52; R.K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, Cambridge 1988, p. 14. 24-26. According to Benner, the final sentence "If anyone transgresses any of the above ordinances, he shall suffer severe punishment" is "a later addition, judging from its place after the natural end of the document" (Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 67). We cannot, however, rule out the possibility that these words were displaced during the process of transmission of the text. As for the provision, it finds numerous parallels. In the republican period, a fragment of a senatus consultum de pago montano mentions manus iniectio and pignoris capio as sanctions against transgressors. Sanctions providing the aquae et igni interdictio (in effect, exile with loss of citizenship) and the expropriation of property (and death in the case of foreigners) are mentioned in a senatus consultum quoted by Ulpian (see bibliographical details in E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, XVI, 1969, p. 1065). Sanctions against transgressors originally appeared also in the edict issued by Octavian and by Antony after the battle of Philippi, but are no longer extant in the text, where we find only: "whoever fails to observe any of these injunctions..." (Aphr. no. 7, 1. 11). In the imperial era, similar sanctions are often found in edicts issued by the emperor. In case of violation of sepolture, a SidxcxYua issued possibly by Augustus prescribed capital punishment (GC no. 2, 11. 2 0 - 2 2 . See Laura Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia, Brescia 1994, pp. 319-333). Then we have that appearing in an edict issued by Nero (ILS II, 3, no. 8794). Clauses warning
248
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
of the consequences of non-observance are introduced by the phrase sciant fore ut ( c o l . II, 1.1) and fore icon nunc sciant ut (col. II, 1. 7). One provision is provided with a motivation and followed by a clause arguing that the provision is mild and fair (see Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 118). In the edict issued by Hadrian in Asia Minor we find dq 8' dv £i)p£0fj rcapd xavxa rcoicov, Sc6[aei 7cpooxeiuov (Katalog der Antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia), I, ed. S. Sabin, IGSK, IX, Bonn 1979, no. 1, 1. 9), while in an edict passed by Septimius Severus and Caracalla we read: "If] anyone is caught [outrageously?] dunning [someone] for taxes owed by another, he shall run no ordinary peril" (GC no. 254, 200 CE, 11. 51-52). Similar clauses are found in the edicts issued by prefects. Katzoff observes that in Egypt we find that in the edicts issued by Roman prefects the body of the edict generally concludes with a threat of a severe penalty for violation of the provisions. See for example P.Oxy. XLI, no. 2954, 11. 2 2 - 2 4 and P.Oxy. XXXIV, no. 2704, 11. 11-14 (R. Katzoff, "Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: the Role of the Prefect", ANRW, 1 1 , 1 3 , 1980, p. 820). The edict issued by the Roman prefect L. Lusius Geta in 54 CE, too, states: edv 8E xiq e£,eXey%Qr\i xd viz £ux)u ana^ K£Kpi|i£va r\ 7cpoaxa%08vxa K£ivf|oaq r\ Pot>A,r|0£ic; duxj)tpo^a 7toifjaai Kaxd [7t]dv f) dpyupiKax; r\ GGOLiaxtKcoi; KotaxaOfjoExai (OGIS II, no. 664,11. 12-18), and in a letter addressed to the oxpaxrryoi of some or all of the nomes of Egypt by the prefect of Egypt Q. Aemilius Saturninus we read: "If anyone is found violating (?) this proclamation (of mine)' let him be assured that he will be handed over to the extreme penalty" (P.Yale inv. 299, 198/9 CE, 11. 10-12). Another enforcement-clause, to prevent offences, appears in the law from Tarentum: Sei quis advorsum h.l. fecerit, poena HS ... in res singulas qujemque teneto (11. 25-26). See A.W. Lintott, "The Roman Judiciary Law from Tarentum", ZPE, 45, 1982, pp. 127-138. Another parallel is provided by an edict issued by a legatus pro praetore, Antistius Rusticus, found at Pisidian Antioch (see W.M. Ramsay, "Studies in the Roman Province of Galatia. VI. Some Inscriptions of Colonia Caesarea Antiochea", JRS, 14, 1924, no. 6, pp. 179-184 and D.M. Robinson, "Notes on Inscriptions from Antioch in Pisidia", JRS, 15, 1925, no. 6, pp. 255-8). The subjunctive is employed to express the order. There is a sanction on 11. 2 8 - 3 2 using the expression sciat me quidquid contra edictum meum retentum fuerit in commissum vindicaturum. See Benner, The Emperor Says, pp. 151-152. What we have in our text, therefore, is surely not an isolated case. The document starts with the titles of the emperor, followed by the verb Xeyei. Then we find the historical background of the decision, introduced by £7t£iSfj, and the decision itself, preceded by the standard formula E8O^E u,oi Kai xco £)icp aujiPouXicp and formulated in accusative and infinitive: (ESO^E UOI) ... xovq 'Ioi)8aio\)<; %pf\aQai... xd XE [xovrcov xpfjfxaxa] i£pd E i v a i . . . Kai d v a 7 C £ | i 7 U £ o 0 a i . . . Kai a 7 i o 8 i 8 o o 0 a i . . . eyyvaq xe uri 6|io^oy£iv.... Toward
22. Ant. XVI,
162-165
249
the end we find the penalty provided for possible thefts, the order of publication, and finally the provision against transgressors, which may have originally appeared before the order of publication. Formal features are the common ones of extant imperial edicts. Augustus' order of publication of his edict, along with the honorary decrees issued by the Jews in honor of him and of Censorinus, which is found on 11. 19-24, finds numerous parallels in Greek inscriptions and papyri. In spite of the fact that the common way to make imperial edicts known was apparently a public reading (see for example CPJII, no. 153, col. 1,11. 1-8), publication is mentioned in an edict by Hadrian, GC no. 88 A, 1. 24, and in a number of responses and edicts by Septimius Severus and Caracalla (GC nos. 227 B, 1. 6; 239,11. 11-12; 240-A, 11. 12-13; 254,1. 53; 261 A, col. II, 11. 12-13). An edict by Nero to the Alexandrians states that "the epistle was exposed publicly in the agora" (GC no. 33, 1. 8), and one sent by Hadrian to Rammius Martialis concerning the children of Roman soldiers was published at Alexandria "in the barracks of the winter quarters of the [third] Cyrenaic [legion and of the twenty-second] Deioterian legion ... at headquarters" (GC no. 70,11. 5-8). We also know that a number of responses of Septimius Severus and Caracalla were published at Alexandria in the stoa of the gymnasium (GC nos. 226, 11. 1-3; 230, 1. 21; 241, 1. 5, 200 CE) and possibly at Babylon in a public stoa (GC no. 269, 215/6 CE, 11. 10-11). When the circumstances required it, an explicit order of publication appeared in the edict itself. That of Vespasian protecting physicians, for example, states: "I, [Imperator Caesar] Vespasian, have signed the order and commanded [its publication] on a whitened board. It was published in Year 6, month [Loos, on the Capitol]..." (GC no. 38, 11. 18-20, 74 CE). Then we have an edict issued by Hadrian, where we read: "Have this letter engraved on a stele and set it up at Piraeus in front of the Deigma" (GC no. 77,11. 12-13); and an edict issued by Severus Alexander on the aurum coronarium explicitly states: "Copies of this decision of mine let the magistrates in each city take care (to expose) publicly >where< they will be most easily visible to the readers" (GC no. 275, col. 2,11. 2 1 - 2 3 , 222 CE). 1
The fact that Augustus orders the publication of the two documents together, that is, his own edict and the honorary decrees issued by the Jews, also finds parallels in Greek inscriptions as early as the second century BCE. A decree of the people of Pergamum, issued in 129 BCE, was inscribed, along with the senatus consultum concerning the Roman alliance with Pergamum, in the temple of Demeter and in the hall of the Boule at Pergamum (IGRR IV, no. 1692 = RGE no. 44). An order of publication probably also appeared in the lost section of the fifth edict of Augustus to Cyrene, where we read: "Imperator Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power for the 19th time, declares: A decree of the senate was passed in the 1
See above, pp. 1 9 - 2 0 .
250
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
consulship of Gaius Calvisius (Sabinus) and Lucius Passienus. I was present and participated in its writing, and since it pertains to the security of the allies of the People of the Romans, in order that it might be known to all those under our care I have decided to send it to the provinces and to append it to this, my edict, from which it will be clear to all inhabitants of the provinces how much concern I and the senate have that no one of our subjects may suffer unduly any harm or extortion" (RDGE no. 31 = RGE 102, 5/4 BCE, 11. 72-82). We also have an edict issued by Paulus Fabius Maximus, governor of Asia, in 9 BCE, announcing a reform of calendar according to which the New Year's day should be the birthday of Augustus, which orders: "I will ordain that the decree (issued by the koinon of Asia), engraved on the stele, be erected in the temple (of Roma and Augustus in Pergamum), preceded by my edict written in both languages" (RDGE no. 65 = RGE no. 101,11. 28-30). Also the mention of the decrees issued by the Jews in honor of Augustus and in honor of Censorinus, which is found on 11. 19-22, finds numerous parallels in contemporary sources. Greek cities, too, often passed decrees in honor of the emperor and sent them to him. They have rarely survived, but we learn about them from the responses given by the emperors. Local decrees in honor of the emperor were issued also in the second and in the third centuries CE. The emperors themselves quite frequently refer to their reading the decree which had been given to them. Not always was it a spontaneous initiative on the part of cities and peoples. Sometimes a local decree in honor of the emperor could also have been somehow imposed on the subjects. This is so in the case of an edict issued by a Roman local governor in Asia, which states: "A decree by the koinon of Asia will have to be written to include all his (Augustus') excellent qualities, in order that the plan formulated by us for the honor of Augustus may remain forever...". In response, the koinon of Asia issued a moving decree: "Since Providence which has divinely disposed our lives has arranged the most perfect (culmination) for life by producing Augustus, whom for the benefit of mankind she has filled with excellence, as if [she had sent him as a savior] for us and our descendants, (a savior) who brought war to an end and set [all things] in order; [and (since) with his appearance] Caesar exceeded the hopes of [all] those who received [glad tidings] before us, not only surpassing those who had been [benefactors] 2
3
4
2
See D. Knibbe, "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII", JOAI, 6 2 , 1993, no. 2, p. 113, Augustus to Ephesus, 29 BCE, 1. 12; GC nos. 4, Augustus to the Eresians, 12 BCE?, 1. 14; 6, Augustus to the Cnidians, 6 B C E , 1. 7; 7, Augustus to Sardis, 5 B C E , 11. 2 4 - 2 7 ; 13, Tiberius to the Aezanitae, 4/5 CE, 11. 6 - 8 ; Knibbe, "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII" (here above), no. 3, p. 113, Tiberius to Ephesus, 12/3 CE, 1. 20; GC nos. 14, Tiberius to the Coans, 15 CE, 11. 5 - 7 ; 18, Caligula to the League of the Achaeans and Boeotians and Locrians and Phocians and Euboeans, 37 CE, 11. 2 4 - 2 5 ; 19, Claudius to the Alexandrians, 41 CE, col. II, 11. 2 0 - 2 1 . S e e GC nos. 6 4 , 136, 157, 167, 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 , 217, 2 1 8 , 225 A, 2 4 4 and 2 7 9 . See Millar, The Emperor, p. 218. 3
4
22. Ant. XVI,
251
162-165
before him, but not even [leaving any] hope [of surpassing him] for those who are to come in the future...": RDGE no. 65 = RGE no. 101 IV (the edict of the Roman governor), 11. 2 6 - 2 8 and VI (the decree of the koinon of Asia), 11. 32-39. Not only in honor of emperors but also in honor of Roman magistrates, honorary decrees were often passed beginning in republican times. An inscription from Argos honors Gnaeus Octavius: "Since Gnaeus Octavius..., Roman, [continues to be] well disposed towards the Achaian League and individually toward those (Achaians) who at any time [make a request of him,] displaying in every circumstance his own affection [and goodwill]... it has been decreed by the People: to praise [G]naeus Octavius ... for the affection which [he has] toward the city and the Achaian League; that he is to be proxenos of the city and benefactor... and (it is further decreed) to engrave this decree on a stone stele and erect it in the temple of Apollo Lykeios in order that it may be clear that the People to those who have chosen to be their benefactors will render thanks corresponding to the benefits (received); and let the task of erecting the stele fall to the strategoi..." (SEG XVI, 1966, no. 255 = RGE no. 22, 170 BCE, 11. 1-20). The city of Lete, too, honored M. Annius, who had been sent to Macedonia as quaestor, and "in the entire earlier period had continued to put above everything else things advantageous in common to all Macedonians and to exhibit the greatest forethought for things of importance for our city in particular, of zeal and ardor omitting nothing.... Therefore, it is decreed by the Boule and People of Lete to praise Marcus Annius ... and to crown him ... with a crown of (olive) branch ... and to give him this decree...; and (it is decreed) to engrave this decree and crown on a stone stele, to be placed in the most conspicuous place of the agora, care to be taken for the engraving of the decree and for the erection of the stele by the politarchai and the treasurer of the city" (SIG II, no. 700 = RGE no. 48, 119 BCE, 11. 6-48). An inscription from Aphrodisias, too, preserves a letter written by Q. Oppius to Plarasa-Aphrodisias in 85 or 84 BCE, in which we read: "...envoys of yours, men fine and good, met me in Kos and congratulated me and gave me the decree in which it was made clear that you rejoice greatly at my presence...". In the matter of honorary decrees, therefore, that of the Jews was not an isolated case. 3
5
6
Both the formal features of this document and the subjects treated in it are therefore common to many contemporary Roman official documents.
5
Aphr. no. 3 = RGE no. 5 9 b, 11. 1 1 - 1 6 . On the purpose of honorary decrees in Greek society, see I. Calabi Limentani, "Modalita della comunicazione ufficiale in Atene. I decreti onorari", Quaderni Urbinati di cultura classica, 4 5 , 1984, pp. 8 5 - 1 1 5 . S e e Tessa Rajak, "Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora", in: Geschichte-TraditionReflexion: Festschrift fiir Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, I, ed. P. Schafer, Tubingen 1996, pp. 3 0 5 - 3 1 9 . 6
252
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
As for the date of this document, if we rely on the number of the tribunician power added in the margin of the Latin version, XI, then we arrive at the year 12 BCE, after March 6, when Augustus was given the title pontifex maximus (see commentary to 11. 1-2). In this case, the date is not 2/3 CE as often maintained, but 12 BCE, after March 6 . This date is confirmed by the conclusions of Bowersock's research: the Marcius Censorinus in honor of whom the Jews had passed an honorary decree was left in the East by Agrippa in 14/13 BCE. The main information provided by Augustus' edict is constituted by the right accorded by Augustus to the Jews "to follow their customs in accordance with the law of their fathers", which is followed by two specific items: permission to send the Jewish sacred monies to Jerusalem and permission to observe the Sabbath also on the eve of the Sabbath. The right to follow Jewish customs is not given to the Jews for the first time. It rather appears to be a confirmation of a right which was probably accorded to the Jews already by Caesar, and was then confirmed by Gaius Rabirius (document no. 17, 11. 2-8), by Publius Servilius (Galba?) (document no. 18, 11. 11-12), by Dolabella (no. 9,11. 12-13), by Augustus himself, then Octavian (no. 7,11. 9-10, 17-19) and by Marcus Junius Brutus (no. 21, 11. 6-9). 7
8
9
10
The permission to observe the Sabbath, too, is not new and is mentioned both in Roman and in Greek documents written in the republican age (nos. 17,11. 7-20; 18; 19,11. 11-14; 21,11. 10-12), but what is new in this document is the fact that the same right is explicitly extended to the eve of the Sabbath from the ninth hour, which means a quarter before four PM in the long days of early summer, and a quarter after two PM in the shortest days of winter (see commentary to 1. 15). This extension was obvious from the Jewish point of view. Since for the Jews the day starts at the sunset and not at dawn, it follows that the Sabbath starts at sunset on Friday. Whether Augustus was aware of these Jewish peculiarities, however, is obviously doubtful, and we may assume that the request had come from the Jews themselves. A Jewish presence behind Augustus' edict has been detected by Zeitlin also in the use of the word 7tapao"K£\)f| for the eve of Sabbath, a word apparently used by Asian Jews instead of the more usual Tipo oappdxtov. 11
7
S e e Juster, Les Juifs, p. 151, note 4; Wikgren, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 3 , note d; Applebaum, "Jewish Status at Cyrene", p. 3 0 1 ; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 143, and Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 184. See also Oliver, GC, p. 5 7 9 . S e e PIR , V, 2, 1983, no. 2 2 2 , pp. 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 and the bibliographical details appearing above, in the commentary to 11. 2 2 - 2 3 . S e e documents nos. 1, 11. 2 8 - 3 0 ; 5,11. 3 2 - 3 4 ; see also above, pp. 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 . " Zeitlin, "The Edict of Augustus", p. 161. On the use of the term rcapaaicewi, which also appears in Mt 27: 62; Mk 15: 4 2 ; Lk 23: 54, and Jn 19: 3 1 , see Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 198, note 6 4 . On the terms commonly used to define the Sabbath, see also 8
9
1 0
2
22. Ant. XVI,
253
162-165
The permission to collect the Jewish sacred monies, too, does not appear for the first time in Augustus' edict. In the historical period under consideration, the Jews used to send to Jerusalem annually a money-tax of half (at one time, apparently, a third) of a shekel, or its equivalent, two Attic drachmae (hence the term Si8pa%u.ov) or two Roman denarii, levied on all Jews over the age of twenty, including freedmen and proselytes, for the upkeep of the Temple and its services. A passage from Strabo quoted by Josephus attests that in 88 BCE "Mithridates sent to Cos and took the money which Queen Cleopatra had deposited there and eight hundred talents of the Jews". Josephus goes on to explain that "now there is no public money among us except that which is God's, and it is therefore evident that this money was transferred to Cos by the Jews of Asia because of their fear of Mithridates". Less than thirty years later, Cicero tells us that in his days the Jews of Asia collected their sacred monies in four cities of Asia Minor: Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyttium and Pergamum (Pro Flacco, 28, 67-69). From the same passage, it also emerges that the same happened not only in Asia, but in other provinces too: Cum aurum Iudaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus nostris provinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret... (Pro Flacco, 28, 67). We therefore learn that as early as the sixties BCE this Jewish practice was widespread, while from the verb soleret used by Cicero in this context we get the impression that the sending of the tribute-money was not, in his time, a legal right, but only a national custom which was permitted to exist de facto, possibly thanks to the customary tolerance of the Roman authorities. 12
13
14
The first official extant permission issued by a Roman government to the Jews to collect their sacred monies appears in the letter written to Delos, where we learn that Caesar, too, had permitted Roman Jews "to contribute money to common meals and sacred rites" (document no. 7, 11. 10-11). The same permission may be alluded to also in document no. 18,11. 7-8. We may observe, however, that in these documents Jerusalem is not mentioned as the final destination of the Jewish money. It is only here, in Augustus' edict, that we find for the first time an explicit legal permission given to the Jews
the works of Schurer, Pelletier, Dupont-Sommer, Herr, Sibony and Sandmel quoted by Rabello, "L'observance des fetes juives", p. 1292, note 12. See J. Liver, "The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature", HTR, 6 6 , 1963, pp. 1 7 3 - 1 9 8 ; S m a l l w o o d , Philonis Alexandrini Legatio (supra, commentary to 11. 1 0 - 1 1 ) , pp. 2 3 7 - 2 3 8 ; Stern, GLAJJ, I, p. 198; E. Bickerman, "La Charte Seleucide de Jerusalem", in: idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, pp. 7 5 - 8 1 ; SchUrer, The History, III, 1, pp. 1 4 7 - 1 4 8 ; A.I. Baumgarten, "Invented Traditions of the Maccabean Era", in: Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion (supra, note 6), pp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 . •3 Ant. X I V , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 = Stern, GLAJJ, I, no. 102, pp. 2 7 2 - 2 7 3 . The sum of eight hundred talents, however, is too large to represent only the annual collection for the Temple. Stern concludes that "the money also included much of the private fortunes of the Asian Jews": GLAJJ, I, p. 2 7 4 . See below, pp. 4 7 0 - 1 . 1 2
1 4
254
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
not only to collect their sacred monies but also to send them to Jerusalem. It therefore appears that, concerning the Jewish sacred monies, Augustus confirms and implements Caesar's policy. A connection with Caesar is also explicitly made on 11. 2 - 6 of our edict, where the reason for Augustus' concessions is identified as the fact that "the Jewish people has been found well disposed to the Roman people not only at the present time but also in time past, and especially in the time of my father auTOKpouop Caesar" (11. 2 - 6 ) . This continuation is also attested in the case of other peoples and cities, such as, for example, Aphrodisias and Stratonicea. Tacitus tells us that these two cities "adduced a decree of the dictator Julius in return for their early services to his case, together with a modern rescript of the deified Augustus, who praised the unchanging fidelity to the Roman nation with which they had sustained the Parthian inroad" (Tac, Ann. 3, 62). Taubler, however, notices "the difference between the legal authority of Caesar and that of Augustus in their dealings with the Jews. Caesar proposed his suggestions to the senate, while Augustus orders the decrees, in virtue of the tribunicia potestas he had". 1 5
16
The collection of the Jewish money was apparently a problematic issue in Asia Minor, not only in Cicero's time but also only two years before the issue of our edict, if the letter of Agrippa preserved in document no. 24 must be dated 14 BCE. The Jews had to defend their monies both from confiscations by the Greek cities and from occasional thefts. The situation seems to have been particularly serious, if Augustus provided a special penalty for those caught stealing Jewish sacred monies or Jewish sacred books. Economic difficulties in the cities concerned may also be identified as one of the reasons responsible for these confiscations. How much Asia managed to recover after the difficult times of the Roman internal struggles we do not k n o w . It is not impossible that Augustus' intervention was requested by the Asian Jews following actual confiscations of the Jewish sacred monies which had taken place. This notion does not appear in the text of the document itself, but is suggested by the content of document no. 25 regarding Cyrene, and by the words we find in the introduction of Josephus to Augustus' edict: "at this particular time the Greeks were persecuting them (the Jews) to the extent of taking their sacred monies away from them" 17
1 5
On Augustus' continuation of Caesar's policy, in spite of his ambivalent attitude toward the dictator, see the bibliography quoted above, p. 116, note 14. E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, p. 170. On the difficult economic situation of the Greek cities in Asia towards the end of the first century B C E , see Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, p. 80, and Trebilco, Jewish Communities, p. 197, note 5 1 . On the devastation of the countryside, the destruction of cities and of their inhabitants, on the imposition of fines and on the exceptional levies, see also Barbara M. Levick, "Greece", CAW, X, 1996, p. 6 4 5 . 1 6
1 7
22. Ant. XVI,
255
162-165
(Ant. XVI, 160). Barclay observes: "the Jewish community (in Asia) clearly had a reputation for prosperity. It contained extremely wealthy individuals, who would normally be held liable to contribute to 'liturgies'. At a time of financial stringency, with the cities only beginning to recover from decades of debts, it seems to have been extremely irksome to Greeks to witness this large and apparently wealthy community fail to pull its weight for the benefit of the city. The Jews made no contribution for the dilapidated temples in their own cities: they sent their money to a temple elsewhere. In some cities the authorities took steps to rectify this 'injustice' — with what legal proceedings we cannot now tell — and seized the temple collections in lieu of money they reckoned owing to th^m. The Jews bitterly resented such confiscations". We may now ask ourselves to what extent Augustus' concern for Jewish matters is indicative of a special consideration for Jewish needs, or it rather follows the common features of his policy attested by extant sources. As for the general right given to the Jews to follow their own customs (11. 8-10), it appears that it does not represent an exception. Inscriptions and papyri show that Augustus tended to confirm privileges and rights which had been granted to peoples, cities and individuals by previous Roman authorities, following a conservative feature of Roman policy which is continuously attested from the first century BCE trough the third century CE. He gave Samos its freedom (Dio, LIV, 9, 7), and from a number of edicts issued by Claudius we learn that, probably upon request, Augustus had granted rights to the Samians, for example (GC no. 20, 41 CE, 11. 11-13), and to the Thasians, to whom Claudius writes: "I preserve for you according to the [decisions] of [the deified] Augustus all the rights you received from him in reference to what you previously had and especially to the export of grain" (GC no. 23, 42 CE, 11. 7-9). In Claudius' letter to the Dionysiac Artists we read: "As for the rights and privileges which have been granted to you by the deified Augustus, I maintain them" (GC no. 24 A, 43 CE, 11. 7-8), and in that issued by Paullus Fabius Persicus in Claudius' time, too, we hear of the recognition by Augustus of the privileges ((|)iA,dv0pco7i;a) of the hymnodes who performed at the provincial T£U8vo<; at Pergamon. In col. IV, 11. 5-6, we also find mention of the restoration of revenues to the temple of Artemis at Ephesus by Augustus, which shows us that issues having a specific religious-economic character were of special concern to Augustus. 18
19
Augustus' care for Jewish sacred monies and books, too, seems not to represent an exception, since his concern for pietas is widely attested. The Sidxayiia Kaiaapo<; from Nazareth on the violation of sepolture, which was most probably issued in Augustus' time, prescribes: "If anyone indicts a man
1 8
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 2 6 8 - 9 . See Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 4 4 8 ; II, p. 1297, note 58 and Millar, "The Emperor", pp. 162-3. 1 9
256
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
as having either destroyed the grave or tomb.... I order that, just as he would if the outrage concerned deities, any such be tried for his offense against the reverent treatment of the aforesaid who were human. For with this prospect it will be more necessary to respect those who have been buried...". Moreover, thefts of sacred things were a special Roman concern in these years. Augustus returned to the Ephesians the statue of Apollo by Miron which Antonius had taken, and we have a legal decision from Kyme, made by Augustus and Agrippa in 27 BCE, concerning the restoration of public and sacred properties to the control of the individual city-states. The ruling is based on a iussus Augusti authorizing the restoration. Unfortunately, the imperial order itself has not survived, and we know about it only from the Leyden inscription, which reads: "Imperator Caesar, son of the god Augustus... (and) [M]arcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, consuls ... If] there are any public or sacred places 20
21
in the cities [ ] of each city of the province, and if there are or will be any [dedications] belonging to these places, [nobody] is to remove or buy (them) or take them as [mortgaged property or] gift. Whatever has been taken away from those places [or] bought and given as a gift, [whoever may be in charge of the] province is to see to it that these are restored to the public or sacred [account?] of the city...". Perhaps in the period between 10/9 or 3/2 BCE the twenty-year old imperial order also provided the legal basis for a restoration of Attic shrines. SEG XLI, 1991, no. 971, 23/22 BCE?, too, attests to the assignment (or return) of sacred lands to the temple of Artemis at E p h e s o s , and we must not forget that Agrippa's letter to the council of Ephesus (document no. 24), too, mentions the provision that "any men who stole from Temple funds should be treated as temple robbers by law and dragged away from asylum" (11. 11. 5-9). 22
23
24
2 0
GC no. 2 - Laura Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia, Brescia 1994, no. 39. Pliny, N.H. X X X I V , 19, 58. RDGE no. 61 = RGE no. 95 A, 11. 1-10. See J.A.O. Larsen "The Policy of Augustus in Greece", AClass, 1, 1958, pp. 1 2 3 - 1 3 0 ; J.H. Oliver, "The Main Problem of the Augustus' Inscription from Cyme", GRBS, 4, 2, 1963, pp. 1 1 5 - 1 2 2 ; idem, "On the Hellenic Policy of Augustus and Agrippa in 27 B.C.", AJPh, 9 3 , 1972, pp. 1 9 0 - 7 . On the v i e w maintained by N. Charbonnel concerning the nature of this document, see SEG X X I X , 1979, no. 1217. See G.R. Culley, The Restoration of Sacred Monuments in Augustan Athens, Ph.D., Univ. of California 1973; idem, "The Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica. I.G. I I 1035", Hesperia, 44, 1975, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 2 3 , and idem, "The Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica, II", Hesperia, 46, 1977, pp. 2 8 2 - 2 9 8 . S e e G. Alfoldy, "Epigraphische Notizen aus Kleinasien I. Ein beneficium des Augustus in Ephesos", ZPE, 87, 1991, pp. 1 5 7 - 1 6 2 . 2 1
2 2
2 3
2
2 4
Ant. XVI, 165. Josephus'
Ant.
Closing
Comments
257
X V I , 165
Josephus' C l o s i n g C o m m e n t s
165
(vi. 2) £Gxr|A,OYpa<]>r|9r| ev xto Kaiaapoq vacb.
Translation This was inscribed upon a pillar in the temple of Caesar. Commentary These words may have been added by Josephus, since they do not find any parallel in known imperial edicts. Either Josephus found them in his source and copied them, or he wanted to comment briefly upon the document he quoted. Perhaps the second possibility is the best, in view of the fact that they do not really add any new information.
23. Ant.
X V I , 166
12 B C E (?)
This is a mandatum sent by Augustus to Norbanus Flaccus, allowing the Jews the right to collect their sacred monies and to send them to Jerusalem. Bibliography J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 149; Kathleen M.T. Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia in the Reign of Augustus", Historia, 7, 1958, pp. 3 1 9 - 3 2 3 ; A.C. Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1 9 6 1 , p. 112; F. Millar, "The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces", JRS, 56, 1966, p. 161; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, p. 79; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The D o c u m e n t s in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, p. 376; R. Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province a l'epoque Augusteenne: contribution a I'histoire administrative et sociale du Principate, Paris 1975, pp. 4 2 2 , 5 1 8 ; F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977, p. 3 2 1 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 8 8 , 1 9 8 1 , p. 183; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 114, note 24; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 119, note 47; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 6 8 0 ; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, pp. 15, 197, note 5 1 .
166
(vi. 3) Kaioap Ncopftavcp OA,aKKCp / a i p e i v . 'IovSaioi dooi TCOI' OIJV e i o i v , oi 8i' dp%aiav ovvf|9eiav eicoGaoiv xpiinaxd xe iepd (t>epovxe<; dva7te|i7ceiv eiq Tepoc6A,i)u.a dKcoA/uxcoq XOIJXO Tcoieixcoaav. 1-4. iudaei qui antiqua consuetudine solent pecunias sacras ad hierosolyma transmittere sine impedimento hoc faciant Lat. 2. o o o i . o n o i vel onn coni. N i e s e .
Translation Caesar to Norbanus Flaccus, greeting. The Jews, however numerous they may be, who have been wont, according to their ancient custom, to bring sacred monies to send up to Jerusalem, may do this without interference.
23. Ant. XVI,
259
166
Commentary 1. Augustus is called simply Kaioap, as it occurs in an inscription from Asia (OGIS II, no. 458) and in one from Spain (CIL II, no. 2581). 1. The Roman magistrate to whom Augustus writes may well be identified with C. Norbanus Flaccus, the son of the homonymous consul in 38 BCE (see R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1960, p. 303). C. Norbanus Flaccus the son was consul in 24 BCE and later proconsul in Asia (see below, p. 260 and Atkinson, "The Governors", pp. 319-323; Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province, pp. 422, 518 and PIR , V, 3, 1987, no. 167, pp. 384-5). 1-2. The expression 'Iou8aioi oaoi 7iox' oiJv e i a i v suggests that Augustus' decision applied to' all the Jews living in Asia under Norbanus Flaccus' supervision. See below, pp. 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 . 3. Jewish sacred monies are also mentioned in documents nos. 22, 11. 16-17; 24, 11. 3, 6; 25,11. 6, 11. 4. We may wonder whether Augustus knew that in Jerusalem the Jewish contributions were meant to reach the Temple. In document no. 22,11. 12-13, too, Augustus mentions Jerusalem and its treasurers as the final destination of the money, but the Temple is not recorded. 2
This document may be identified as a mandatum, namely, one of those written instructions given by the emperors to the procurators, the proconsuls and the propraetors "in order that they may be under definite orders" mentioned by 010,011,15,4.! Since by their very nature the mandata were very seldom engraved, it is difficult to find parallels to our document in surviving inscriptions and papyri. An independent confirmation of the content of this document, however, comes from Philo, who mentions "a letter which he (Augustus) sent to the governors of the provinces in Asia, as he had learnt that the sacred first-fruits were treated with disrespect..." (Leg. 311). Letters written by Augustus on behalf of the Jews are referred to also in Leg. 315, in document no. 25, 11. 2 - 4 , and in no. 26, 11. 2 - 5 . When exactly our mandatum was written is difficult to establish. An earlier date is proposed by those scholars who identify the Roman magistrate with Flaccus the father, who had been consul in 38 B C E . 35 BCE is suggested by Magie and by Johnson et al., while Saulnier proposes a time between 31 and 2
1
On this kind of document, see G.P. Burton, "The Issuing of Mandata to Proconsuls and a N e w Inscription from Cos", ZPE, 2 1 , 1976, pp. 6 3 - 6 8 ; Millar, The Emperor, pp. 1 5 7 - 8 , 164; R.J.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton 1984, pp. 4 0 2 ^ 0 5 and V. Marotta, Mandata principum, Torino 1991 (non vidi). See Wikgren, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 4 , note b. 2
260
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
3
27 B C E . The use of Kcxioap alone to designate Augustus, however, does not constitute a proof that this document was drawn up before 27 B C E , and a later date, closer to that of the edict issued by Augustus on the same matters (document no. 22) seems more probable. Opinions also differ, however, among scholars who identify the magistrate with Flaccus the son. Atkinson takes into account the five-year interval which had to elapse between the consulship in Rome and the provincial governorship, and she may be correct, since the law passed by Pompey in 52 BCE, which had fallen into abeyance during the civil wars, was revived by Augustus. If the interval was observed, it follows that, if Norbanus Flaccus was consul in 24 BCE, the period of his proconsulship in Asia could have started in 18 BCE. Atkinson, however, continues observing that Augustus' order to Flaccus could not have been issued while Agrippa was exercising his proconsulare imperium in the East, namely in the years 16-13 BCE, and concludes that the possible dates for our document are only 18/17 or 17/16 B C E . Regretfully, she gives no reason why Augustus could not have written to Norbanus Flaccus while Agrippa was holding a proconsulare imperium, and it seems impossible to rule out the possibility that Flaccus and Agrippa were in office simultaneously. That is why Rajak suggests a time between 17 and 13 BCE, probably after Nicolaus' pleadings of 14 BCE, while Smallwood thinks about a time after 13 BCE, observing that, if the order of the narrative in Josephus has some weight, a later date would be even preferable, since the documents of Augustan time are quoted by Josephus after the mention of the completation of the rebuilding of Caesarea, which took place in 12 or in 10 BCE. For this reason, following Dahl and Juster, Smallwood suggests some point after 12, and the same date is suggested also by Millar and by Vermes-Millar. This conclusion fits with the conclusions reached by Evans on the basis of extant epigraphical and literary material, according to which C. Norbanus Flaccus the son, born around 63/2, and consul in 24, was probably proconsul of Asia between 23 and 12 B C E . 4
5
6
7
8
9
3
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, Princeton 1950, p. 1580, where he follows Dessau and Groag; Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 112; Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 183. See E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970, pp. 3 1 0 - 1 and Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 114, note 24. H.F. Jolowicz, B. Nicholas, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, Cambridge 1972, p. 67. The interval of five years, however, was not always observed. See below, p. 2 6 5 . Atkinson, "The Governors", p. 322. Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 114, note 24. S m a l l w o o d , Philonis Alexandrini Legatio (supra, note 4 ) , p. 310; Millar, "The Emperor", p. 161; idem, The Emperor, p. 161; Schtirer, The History, p. 119, note 4 7 . R.J. Evans, "Norbani Flacci: the Consuls of 38 and 2 4 B.C.", Historia, 36, 1987, p. 128. 4
5
6
7
8
9
Ant. XVI, 166. Josephus'
Closing
Comments
261
In this case, we may link this document with Augustus' edict allowing the Jews to send their money to the treasurers of Jerusalem (document no. 22, 11. 12-13), and we may suggest that, in addition to sending his edict to the Asian Jews, Augustus also sent written instructions in the same regard to his Roman magistrate in office in Asia, a procedure which is well attested in Roman official documents. 10
Ant. X V I , 166 Josephus' Closing C o m m e n t s
• 166
(vi. 3) Kai x a m a jiev Kaiaap.
Translation These are the documents (issued by) Caesar. Commentary Here, too, as above (par. 165), Josephus wanted to comment briefly upon the document quoted.
1 0
S e e above, pp. 1 4 4 - 1 4 5 .
Ant.
X V I , 167
Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
167
(vi. 4) 'Aypinnaq 8e K a i avxoq eypa\|/ev \mep xcov 'Iou5aicov xov xporcov xovxov.
Translation But Agrippa himself also wrote on behalf of the Jews in the following manner. Commentary As in the case of Josephus' comment in par. 165, here, too, the words added after the end of document no. 23 and those found before no. 24 do not contain any new information, and it is therefore doubtful that he copied them from a literary source. We rather get the impression of how important it had to be for Josephus to link the documents together and to give them an historical frame, a task which was surely not easy, if he had in front of him only a collection of bare documents.
24. Ant. X V I , 1 6 7 - 1 6 8 summer 14 B C E (?)
Letter written by Agrippa to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, confirming the Jews' right to collect their sacred monies and to send them to Jerusalem, and exempting the Jews from giving bond on Sabbath. Bibliography P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 110; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans V empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 150, 382; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, III, Stuttgart-Berlin 1923, p. 127; E. Bickerman, "The Warning Inscriptions of Herod's Temple", JQR, 37, 1947 = idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian Hisotry, II, Leiden 1980, p. 2 2 3 , note 89; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia
24. Ant. XVI,
167-168
263
Minor, II, Princeton 1950, p. 1341, note 34; H.S. Jones, "The Princeps", CAH, X, 1952, pp. 1 4 6 - 1 4 7 ; Kathleen M.T. Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia in the Reign of Augustus", Historia, 1, 1958, p. 320; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 3 0 8 ; R. Hanslik, "M. Vipsanius Agrippa", RE, II, 17, 1 9 6 1 , coll. 1 2 5 1 - 1 2 6 5 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 117; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970, pp. 2 7 8 - 9 ; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, p. 85; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The D o c u m e n t s in the Jewish Literature of the Second T e m p l e " (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980, p. 376; R. Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province a l'epoque Augusteenne: contribution a I'histoire administrative et sociale du Principate, Paris 1975, pp. 4 0 8 - 9 ; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 141; R. Goldenberg, "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the T i m e of Constantine the Great", ANRW, II, 19, 1, 1979, p. 4 1 8 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 ; U. Baumann, Rom und die Juden, Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 258; A.M. Rabello, "L'observance des fetes j u i v e s dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 1300; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 119; J.M. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, R o m e 1984, pp. 4 5 9 - 4 6 0 ; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. V e r m e s , F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 119, note 4 7 , p. 130; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 6 8 0 ; J. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia 1989, pp. 5 7 8 - 5 7 9 ; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, p. 15; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 268.
168
(vi. 4) 'Aypi7C7ca<; Etyzaicov dp%o\)ai PoiAfj STJIICO %aipeiv. xcov eiq xo iepov xo ev 'IepoooA/6|j.oi<; dva(|)epo|j.evcov iepcov xprpdxcov xfjv e7ci|j.eA.eiav Kai ^lAaKfiv Pot>Ao|j.ai xoix; ev 'Aaia 'Ioi)8aioix; TtoieioGai Kaxd xd Tcdxpia. xoix; xe KXenxovxaq iepd %pf||iaxa xcov 'Ioi)5aicov Kaxafyevyovxds; xe eic; xd<; aovXiaq PovAofiai d7coa7cda0ai Kai 7iapa5i8oa6ai xoic; Iov8aioi<;, cp SiKaicp d7T.oo7tcovxai oi iepoauAot. eypaxj/a 5e Kai IiAavcp xco axpaxnycp i v a odppaaiv (ir|8ei<; dvayKd^rj 'Iou5aiov eyyuac; 6}xoA,oyeiv. 6.
axa
xPW -
5
10
Ypdujiaxa P.
9. EiAouavw A M W : Sylano Lat. 10. ne-iudaei compellantur Lat.
Translation Agrippa to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, greeting. It is my will that the care and custody of the sacred monies belonging to the
264
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
account o f the Temple in Jerusalem shall be given to the Jews in Asia in accordance with their ancestral customs. And if any men steal the sacred monies of the Jews and take refuge in places of asylum, it is my will that they be dragged away from them and turned over to the Jews under the same law by which temple-robbers are dragged away from asylum. I have also written to the praetor Silanus that no one shall compel the Jews to give bond on the Sabbath. Commentary I. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63-12 BCE), Roman general and statesman, devoted friend and son-in-law of the emperor Augustus, was appointed as governor of the eastern provinces twice, in the years 23-21 BCE and in the years 16-13 BCE. See below, pp. 268-270. 2. On the opening of this letter, which is the usual one in Roman official correspondence, see above, p. 18. See also document no. 1, commentary to II. 2 - 3 . 2 - 3 . This is the first and the only time in which mention of the Temple of Jerusalem is found in a document quoted by Josephus. 3. The "sacred monies" of the Jews are often dealt with in the documents written in Augustus' days. See documents nos. 22, 11. 16-7; 23, 1. 3; 25, 11. 1-2; 26, 1. 2; and 27, 11. 1-2. It is clear that the issue was a particularly problematic one during this period. See pp. 254-255, 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 . 4. Po\>A,oum is the technical verb which usually appears in decrees issued by Roman magistrates. In republican times, we find it in RDGE nos. 2, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 38, 57, 58 and in a number of the documents cited by Josephus: nos. 1,11. 8, 22; 9, 1. 15; 11,1. 8; 18, 1. 10. In the imperial age, the verb is commonly used in the edicts issued by the emperors. See for example Augustus' letter to the Samians (GC no. 1, 1. 7), a proclamation of Germanicus at Alexandria (GC no. 16, 11. 8-9, and probably also 11. 19-20), Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians (CPJ II, 153, col. Ill, 1. 57; col. IV, 1. 61), and the two edicts issued by Claudius concerning the Jews quoted below (no. 28, 1. 24 and no. 29, 1. 24). See also Trajan's letters to the Delphians (GC no. 45, 1. 10) and to the Smyrneans (GC no. 48, 1. 2) and Hadrian's epistle preserved in GC no. 121,1. 23. It therefore appears that our document, though a letter from the formal point of view, bears features which make it resemble a decree in substance. The general tone of this letter confirms this assessment: Agrippa is giving orders. 4 - 5 . Tout; ev 'Acia 'Ioi)5atou<;. From the fact that Agrippa writes concerning the rights of "the Asian Jews" in general, we may infer that the matter applied to the Jews of the whole province. See Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews, p. 85.
24. Ant. XVI,
265
167-168
5. Kaxd xd 7r.dxpia. On the Jewish practice of sending money to the Temple of Jerusalem, see above, pp. 253-254. 7. Kaxa^euyovxdt; xe eic; xdq acvXiaq. In Asia, the right of do\)A,ia had been granted to the temple of Artemis both at Sardis and at Ephesus (to Sardis by Caesar a few days before his death; see SEG XXXIX, 1989, no. 1290, and P. Herrmann, "Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligttimer: Eine Urkunde des Dictators Caesar aus Sardeis", Chiron, 19, 1989, pp. 127-164), to the temple of Hecate at Stratonikeia (RDGE no. 18, 1. 113) and to that of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias by Caesar's decree (confirmed by a senatus consultum issued in 35 BCE: Aphr. no. 8,11. 4 0 - 4 3 ; see Reynolds' comment on pp. 79-80). On Augustus and the temple of Artemis, see also Strabo, XIV, 1, 23. Thefts of Jewish sacred monies are a recurrent feature in the documents written in Augustan times quoted by Josephus. See also document no. 22,11. 15-17. 7 - 8 . ftouA,ouai drcooTidcGai Kai 7tapa8i8oc0ai xolq 'Iou8aioi<;. Juster observes that this was an exceptional measure. See below, p. 267. 9. On the term iepoovtan, see document no. 22, commentary to 1. 18. 9. Eitaxvcp xco oxpaxriYcp. Atkinson identifies him with the C. Iunius Silanus who was consul in 17 BCE (E. Hohl, RE, 1, 19, 1918, s.v. C. Iunius Silanus C.f., M.n.; Atkinson, "The Governors", pp. 300, 305. See also PIR , IV, 3, 1966, no. 823, p. 348). This is not impossible, in view of the fact that the interval of five years between the consulate and the proconsulate in the provinces was not always observed. Cases are also attested, in which a consul is found as proconsul in the province of Asia before the interval of five years has elapsed. If we take into account the list of Roman governors in office in the province of Asia given by Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs, pp. 5 1 7 - 5 1 9 , in five cases (C. Norbanus Flaccus, Paullus Fabius Maximus, Julius Antonius, C.Asinius Gallus, C.Vibius Postumus) out of twenty-four, the interval of five years was not respected. If the interval was not observed, we would not have to follow Atkinson in dating Silanus' office in Asia to the time of the first stay of Agrippa in Asia, that is, in the years 23-21 BCE, which does not fit the historical context as it emerges from the examination of the sources (see below, p. 268). Another possibility which cannot be ruled out is that he was instead the Marcus Junius Silanus who had been consul in 25 BCE. See below, p. 271. 2
10. On the expression c d p p a o i v . . . eyyuaq 6u.oA,oyeiv, see above, document no. 22, commentary to 11. 13-14. The observance of the Sabbath is also mentioned in documents written in republican times (nos. 9,11. 8-9; 17, 1. 7; 18, 11. 6-7; 19, 1. 12; 21, 1. 6). Relevant bibliography is quoted above (document no. 17, commentary to 1. 7). On the possible reasons for the Greek hostility to the Jews, see below, pp. 271-272. As noted above (see commentary to 1. 4), this is a letter from the formal point
266
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
of view, which however has a content and a style similar to those of the edicts issued by Roman prefects in the provinces. We find the usual opening of letters, and then the decision, expressed in a concise and precise fashion, introduced by the verb (to\)A.ou.ai, the meaning of which was impossible to misunderstand. Then penalties for transgressors are provided, as in document no. 22, although the punishments themselves are different. At the end, a letter is mentioned, which had been written by Agrippa to the praetor Silanus concerning the Jews' right to observe the Sabbath, in order that he may take care of its implementation. This was apparently a normal procedure, which finds numerous parallels in the extant papyri of the imperial age. Trajan writes to the Delphians: "Concerning the proceedings which [Domitian] started against Pythodorus [I shall write to] my friend Herennius Saturninus [the] proconsul and to the procurator [ Rufus to explain them]... (GC no. 44, 98 CE, 11. 5-7). He also writes to the Alexandrians: "[Appreciating] your city's extraordinary [loyalty] to the Augusti,... I commended you ... to my friend and prefect Pompeius Planta, in order that he might see with every care to your undisturbed tranquillity and your food-supply and your communal and individual rights" (GC no. 46, 98 CE, 11. 4-15) and to the Smyrneans: "...I want no one from the free cities to be coerced into undertaking a liturgy.... I have written concerning all this to Julius Balbus, my friend the proconsul" (GC no. 48, 100 CE, 11. 2-6). Similarly, Hadrian writes to the Aphrodisian: "...I release her from the tax, and I have written to Claudius Agrippinus my procurator to warn one who has contracted for the tax in Asia to stay away from your city" (GC no. 69, 119 CE).l As for the content, Agrippa accords the Jews the same rights mentioned in Augustus' edict preserved in document no. 22, that is, the care and custody of the Jewish sacred monies, and the right not to give bond on the Sabbath. Here, too, as in Augustus' edict, these rights are granted not to only the Jews of Ephesus, but to the Asian Jews as a whole, as it emerges from 11. 4 - 5 . From this passage it is perhaps possible to infer that in other cases, too, when a letter is sent by Rome to Ephesus, which is the chief city of the province, its provisions may apply to all the Asian Jews. See above, the case of documents nos. 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16. Agrippa's concession of grants to the Jews is also mentioned by Philo in the speech that the Judean Jews held before Petronius in 38 CE, where we read: "It may be that by this mission we shall persuade him (Caligula), pleading in full either the honour due to God or the preservation of our laws undestroyed... or the decisions of his grandfather (6 nannoq) and great-grandfather (7cpo7ia7t7UO(;) in which they ratified our customs with all 1
Other examples of letters written by emperors to local Roman governors are found in GC nos. 7 1 , 7 9 , 112, 120, 138, 196, 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 2 4 2 .
24. Ant. XVI,
167-168
267
respect for them" (Leg. 240). The 7cd7C7io<; is M. Vipsanius Agrippa, Gaius' maternal grandfather, while the 7tpo7ia7t7tO(; is Augustus, father of Gaius' maternal grandmother, Julia. Juster emphasizes that Agrippa's measures look somehow extraordinary when compared with the known measures of the common right under three aspects: 1) Agrippa seems to consider sacred and inviolate all the Jew's money, and not only that deposited in the synagogues; 2) the criminal is denied the right of asylum; 3) the Jews themselves have to judge the crime. It appears, however, that not all Jewish money is considered holy in Agrippa's letter, but only that which belongs to the Temple of Jerusalem (xcov ei<; xo iepov xo ev 'IepoaoMuon; dvac^epojiEvcov iepcov xpriudxcov). Moreover, according to Bickerman, the legal meaning of the text was misunderstood by Juster: "The Greek law made a distinction between the theft perpetrated within a sanctuary (iepoouAAa) and the stealing of consecrated property outside of the temple (K?i07if) iepcov xpTpaxcov). Only the first crime was punished by death.... Agrippa assimilated the stealing of argentum Judaicum to a temple robbery". Special measures were perhaps called for in view of the gravity of the situation. Oliver observes that Agrippa "extends the law against sacrilegium to cover the God of the Jews and to remove a hindrance to self-help and prosecution". 2
3
4
5
In any case, the Jews are not the only people Agrippa is attested to have benefitted. From extant sources it appears that Agrippa too, as Augustus, was concerned with the rights of his subjects. In his letter to the Gerousia of Argive Elders descended from Danaus and Hypermestra, for example, we read: "Personally I feel confident that I have provided the occasion for your society to survive and to safeguard its ancient dignity and that I have restored to you many of the rights which had been canceled, and for the future I am eager to take good care of you..." (GC no. 3, perhaps 17-16 BCE, the period of Agrippa's coregency and sojourn in the East). As for the time in which this document was written, the similarity of the subjects with which it deals to those mentioned in Augustus' edict sent to the Asian Jews is striking. They both deal with Jewish money, allowing it to be sent to Jerusalem and punishing cases of thefts, and they both permit the Jews not to give bond on Sabbath. Prima facie, this similarity would suggest that the two documents were contemporary. If Augustus' edict must be dated 12 BCE, after March 6, however, we must exclude this possibility, since in March of 12 BCE Agrippa died. Agrippa's letter was therefore written before 2
See Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio, pp. 2 7 8 - 9 . On the political reasons — la raison d'etat — for Agrippa's adhesion to the general line of the Augustan policy toward the Jews, see Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp. 4 6 0 - 2 . Les Juifs, pp. 3 8 2 - 3 . Bickerman, "The Warning Inscriptions", p. 2 2 3 , note 89. GC, p. 579. 3
4
5
268
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
the edict of Augustus, probably while he was in the East. When exactly, it is difficult to know, since Agrippa was in the East twice, in 23-21 and in 17-13 BCE. The first question is therefore which of these two periods better fits the circumstances of his intervention on behalf of the Jews. The first time, as far as we know, Agrippa had very little contact with the Jews. In 23 he left for Asia Minor, was at Mytilene in the middle of 23 and in Greece in the autumn of 22. In 22/21 he was busy against the Parthians, and left the East to come back to Rome in 2 1 . The only contact with the Jews was a a short visit of Herod while he was at Mytilene. Josephus tells us that "as he (Agrippa) was wintering at Mytilene, Herod, who was one of his closest friends and companions, went to meet him there and then returned to Judaea". Soon afterwards, the friendship was cemented by Agrippa's sending to the Jewish king unanswered and in chains some Gadarenes who had come to Mytilene to profer charges against him (Ant. XV, 3 5 0 - 1 ) . The relationship between Agrippa and Herod was much closer on the occasion of the second mission of Agrippa to the East. In the summer or in the autumn of 17, Agrippa is attested in Greece with his wife. He spends the winter of 17/16 at Corynthus, going to Epidaurus, Sparta and Oropos in 16. After June of 16, Augustus sends him to Syria, and toward the end of the year we find him in Thracia, to put down a rebellion in the Bosphoros. There Agrippa spends the winter of 16/15, and in 15 he apparently visits Troy. Then we find him at Lampsakos, in the Hellespont, at Ephesus, Cos, and Cheremos. At the beginning of the summer of 15 he arrives in Syria, and there, at Antioch, Herod meets him and invites him to visit Judea. Agrippa accepts the invitation. Josephus tells us that he visited Caesarea and the new fortresses of Caesarea, Herodeum and Hyrcania and was received in Jerusalem, probably in the autumn of 15 BCE, in the palace where the banquet halls bore the names Kaisareion and Agrippeion, in honor of the two principal persons of the empire. Acclaimed by the people, Agrippa showed sympathy toward his guests, giving a banquet to the population and offering a hecatomb in the Temple. Josephus concludes the report of this visit by observing that "although for his own part... he would have remained several days more, he was pressed for time at the season, for with the coming on of winter he did not think it safe to make the return voyage to Ionia which he was again obliged to undertake". Agrippa's visit to the Temple of Jerusalem is also mentioned by Philo, Leg. 291 ('AypiTntac; exturiae TO iepov eA.0cov). After 6
7
8
9
6
On his role in the East, see R. S y m e , The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1960, pp. 3 3 7 - 3 4 5 , 389, and J.A. Crook, "Political History, 3 0 B.C. to A . D . 14", CAH , X, 1996, p. 95. R. Hanslik, "M. Vipsanius Agrippa", RE, II, 17, 1 9 6 1 , coll. 1 2 5 1 - 1 2 5 4 . See D. Magie, "The Mission of Agrippa to the Orient in 23 B.C.", CPh, 3 , 1908, pp. 1 4 7 - 8 , and Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp. 324—328, 4 5 1 . Ant. X V I , 1 2 - 1 5 . For a critical reading of Josephus' version of the visit of Agrippa to Judea, see Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, pp. 4 5 4 - 4 5 5 . 2
7
8
9
24. Ant. XVI,
167-168
269
leaving Judea, Agrippa spent the winter of 15/14 at Lesbos, and then, at the beginning of 14, the disorders which broke out in the Bosphoros obliged him to intervene. He asked Herod for ships, and himself entered the Black Sea. This caused the insurgents to lay down their arms. The ships sent by Herod were stopped at Chios by opposing winds, but the very fact that they had been sent was apparently appreciated by Agrippa. Herod reached Agrippa, and the two, together, passed through Cappadocia, Phrygia and arrived at Ephesus. At this point, quoting Nicolas of Damascus, Josephus informs us that "when the Ionians agitated against them (the Jews) and petitioned Agrippa that they alone may enjoy the citizenship which Antiochus, the grandson of Seleucus, called Theos by the Qreeks, had given them, and claimed that, if the Jews were to be fellows, they should worship the Ionians' gods, the matter was brought to trials and the Jews won the right to use their own customs, their advocate being Nicolas of Damascus; for Agrippa gave his opinion that it was not lawful for him to make a new rule. But if anyone wishes to learn the details, let him read the hundred and twenty-third and hundred and twenty-fourth books of Nicolas' history" (Ant. XII, 125-127). The same episode is recorded in Ant. XVI, 27-30: "It was also at this time, when they (Agrippa and Herod) were in Ionia, that a great multitude of Jews, who lived in its cities, took advantage of their opportunity to speak out freely, and came to them and told them of the mistreatment which they had suffered in not being allowed to observe their own laws and in being forced to appear in court on their holy days because of the inconsiderateness of the examining judges. And they told him that they had been deprived of the monies sent as offerings to Jerusalem and of being forced to participate in military service and civic duties and to spend their sacred monies for these things, although they had been exempted from these duties because the Romans had always permitted them to live in accordance with their own laws. While they were protesting in this fashion, the king induced Agrippa to listen to them as they pleaded their case, and he assigned Nicolas, one of his friends, to speak in behalf of their rights. And when Agrippa had taken as councillors the Roman officials and those kings and princes who were present, Nicolas arose and spoke in behalf of the Jews". After Nicolaus' speech in defense of the Jews is reported, Josephus goes on stating: "Thereupon Agrippa ... replied that because of Herod's goodwill and friendship for him he was ready to grant the Jews all they might ask for.... And since they asked that the rights which they had formerly received should not be annulled, he would confirm their right to continue to observe their own customs without suffering mistreatment. Having spoken in this way, he dismissed the gathering..." (Ant. XVI, 60-61). This event probably took place in the summer, before the autumn of 14, when Herod and Agrippa separated, 10
1 0
Hanslik, "M. Vipsanius Agrippa", coll. 1 2 5 9 - 1 2 6 5 .
270
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Herod went back to Jerusalem and Agrippa to Lesbos, where he spent the following winter. The circumstances mentioned in Josephus' narrative may well have been the background of the letter written by Agrippa to Ephesus. Juster, it is true, observes that in Josephus' narrative the Ionian Jews complain that their monies have been confiscated by the Greek cities, while in his letter Agrippa deals with thefts perpetrated by private individuals, but the main purpose of the letter was the confirmation of the Jews' right to send their sacred monies to Jerusalem (11. 3-6), and this confirmation was addressed to the Greek city. The message to be inferred was clear: it was forbidden for the city to confiscate the Jewish monies. Particular cases of thefts are mentioned in addition, but no contradiction appears between Agrippa's letter and the episode which took place in Ionia in 14 BCE. On the year 14 BCE as the date of Agrippa's letter, there seems to be consensus in modern scholarship. As for the IiAtxvco xco oxpaxrrycp mentioned on 1. 9, to whom Agrippa writes concerning the Jewish rights, a general uncertainty prevails in modern scholarship whether he should be identified with C. Iunius Silanus who was consul in 17 B C E , or with M. Junius Silanus, consul in 25 B C E . Following Groag, Magie doubts that Silanus is to be identified with M. Junius Silanus, and concludes that "this Silanus cannot be identified", and Szramkiewicz and Oliver, too, do not take a clear position between the two possibilities. Unfortunately, no significant detail is known about the two Silani which allows us to establish which of them is "our" Silanus. We may only say that, if this letter of Agrippa was written in 14 BCE, to identify him with the C. Iunius Silanus who was consul in 17 B C E means that the interval of at least five years imposed between the holding of the office in Rome and 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
1 1
Hanslik, "M. Vipsanius Agrippa", col. 1266. On the friendly relationship between Herod and Agrippa on this occasion, see also A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1960, p. 217 and Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 8 8 - 8 9 . Les Juifs, pp. 150, note 2; 3 8 2 , note 2. See Meyer, Ursprung undAnfange,p. 127; M. Re'mhold, Marcus Agrippa, G e n e v a - N e w York 1933, pp. 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 ; Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 478; II, p. 1341, note 3 4 (following Waddington, Otto and Dessau); Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 117; S m a l l w o o d , Philonis AlexandriniLegatio, pp. 2 7 8 - 9 ; eadem, The Jews, p. 141; Saulnier, "Lois romaines", pp. 1 8 3 - 4 ; Baumann, Rom und die Juden, p. 258; Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter", p. 119; Schurer, The History, p. 119, note 47; Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, p. 4 6 0 and Oliver, GC, p. 579. PIR , IV, 3, 1966, no. 8 2 3 , p. 348. PIR IV, 3 , 1966, no. 830, pp. 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 . Roman Rule, II, p. 1341, note 34. In PIR IV, 3, 1966, no. 8 2 3 , p. 348, too, w e read that "res autem sub iudice est". Szramkiewicz, Les gouverners, pp. 4 0 9 - 4 0 9 , note 20; Oliver, GC, p. 579. PIR IV, 3, 1966, no. 8 2 3 , p. 348. 1 2
1 3
1 4
2
15
2
1 6
2
1 7
1 8
2
24. Ant. XVI,
271
167-168
19
the corresponding provincial governorship was not observed in this c a s e . Alternatively, there seems to be no reason to rule out an identification with the M. Iunio Silano who was consul in 25 B C E . If Agrippa's letter to Ephesus was written two years before Augustus' edict sent to the Asian Jews, then it appears that Agrippa's intervention was not very helpful. In spite of the fact that the situation was already rather serious in his days, as we understand from the severity of the penalty prescribed for those who transgress his orders (11. 5-9), two years later Augustus had to deal again with the custody of the Jewish sacred monies and with the Jews' exemption from giving bond on Sabbath, providing new measures of punishment for transgressors. It was apparently very difficult for local Greeks to accept Roman protection of Jewish rights. The socio-economic background of the conflict between the Jews and the Greeks of Asia is vividly depicted by Barclay: "The social and economic realities underlying this recurrent point of dispute are, I think, revealed in the speech of Nicolas of Damascus before Agrippa in Ionia in 14 BCE (Ant. 16.31-57). Among the Jews' grievances concerning Gentile high-handedness is the complaint that the Jews have been deprived of their money collected as offerings for Jerusalem and have been forced to contribute to military expenses and public duties ('liturgies'), and to spend their sacred money on such things (16.28). Nicolas insists that Jewish prosperity should not arouse envy (16.41); he also indicates that the Jews' sacred money has been taken from them by the imposition of taxes (16.45). Here an important aspect of the controversy emerges. The Jewish community clearly had a reputation for prosperity. It contained... wealthy individuals, who would normally be held liable to contribute to 'liturgies', and it made sizeable collections of money for its annual tribute to Jerusalem. At a time of financial stringency, with the cities only beginning to recover from decades of debt, it seems to have been extremely irksome to Greeks to witness this large and apparently wealthy community fail to pull its weight for the benefit of the city. The Jews made no contributions for the dilapidated temples in their own cities: they sent their money to a temple elsewhere. Indeed it appears that they refused in general to undertake certain 'liturgy' obligations, which were normally required of wealthy citizens as their contribution to the welfare and honour of the city.... It appears that, so long as the financial crisis lasted, the Jews' large collections were too tempting a cherry to resist, and their apparent failure to assist in the economic restoration of their host cities continued to be a cause of resentment". Barclay also observes that "we should not overlook the centrality of religion in the maintenance of such civic patriotism. In many cases a local cult with a world-famous temple was central to the city's identity and crucial 20
1 9
S e e above, commentary to 1. 9.
20 P1R2 IV, 3, 1966, no. 8 3 0 , pp. 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 .
272
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
to its economy. In Ephesus a city mob could respond with fervour to the cry 'Great is Artemis of the Ephesians', reacting violently to a threat to the city's honour and its massive religious revenues (Acts 19.23-41). Much the same could have occurred in any Asian city. The most obvious means for Roman rulers or wealthy citizens to gratify the cities was to enhance their religious glory, through some festivals or contest, some temple erected or restored, or some priesthood endowed. At a time when civic pride was wounded by political circumstances, the Jews' abstention from such 'idolatry', and their limited participation in the main currents of civic life, were their fundamental crimes in the eyes of the Greeks. For civic communities struggling to revive their political fortunes, the presence of burgeoning sub-communities less than fully committed to the social and cultural life of the city was an irritant. Like larger-scale nationalism, civic pride can respond violently to the influence of 'aliens', when society itself suffers deprivation or decline. In the case of the Asian cities, the Jews, scattered as they were in different locations ... had to contend with repeated violations of their 'rights', as time and again their communal institutions were challenged and their religious customs ignored. To this extent they were victims of the social, economic and political pressures bearing upon the Greeks cities in these decades". 21
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean
Diaspora,
pp. 2 6 8 - 2 6 9 and p. 2 7 4 .
25. Ant. X V I ,
169-179
summer 14 B C E (?)
Letter sent by Agrippa to the magistrates, council and people of Cyrene, confirming the Jews' right to send their sacred monies to Jerusalem.
Bibliography P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 111; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans V empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 150; D . Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, Princeton 1950, p. 1341, note 34; Kathleen M.T. Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia in the Reign of Augustus", Historia, 7, 1958, p. 3 2 1 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 117; S. Applebaum, "Jewish Status at Cyrene in the Roman Period", PP, 19, 1964, pp. 2 9 7 - 3 0 3 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, p. 376; R. Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province a I'epoque Augusteenne: contribution a I'histoire administrative et sociale du Principate, Paris 1975, pp. 4 0 1 - 4 0 2 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 142; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 184; J.M. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, R o m e 1984, p. 460; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 130; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 680; J. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia 1989, pp. 5 7 7 - 8 8 ; J. Reynolds, "Cyrene", CAH , X, 1996, p. 633. 2
169
170
(vi. 5) MapKoq 'AypiTCTuat; Kupnvaicov dpxovaiv PovAtj 5r||!cp %aipeiv. oi ev Kupf|vn 'Io\)8aioi, vnep cov f|8r| 6 ZePaoxoq e.%e\i\\f£ npbq xov ev AiPvrj oxpaxryyov xoxe ovxa OA,dpiov Kai 7up6<; xoix; dA,Xonq xovq xf\q enap%iaq e7r,ineA,ov|j.evou<;, i v a a v e m KCoAuxcoq dvaTteuTtnxai xd iepd %pr|u.axa eiq 'IepoaoA/ULia, coq eoxiv avxolq rcdxpiov, evexu%6v p,oi vuv coq \mo xivcov at)KO(j)avxcov eTtnped^oivxo Kai co<; ev 7tpo(|)doei xeAxov Ltf| 6(|)eiA,o(a.evcov KCOA/UOIVTO* olq 4. 9.
<))dpiov A M Lat. KCOA/UOIVTO jiri xd i e p d p e ^ e i v con. Richards et Shutt.
5
274
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
d7ioKa9icrccxv£iv Kaxd u/nSeva xporcov evox^ovu.evoi<;, Kai e'i xivcov iepd xpf|uaxa d(|)r|pr|vxai xcov 7idX.£cov, xoix; eiq xauxa d r c o K E K p i u E v o u c ; Kai xouxa 5iop0c6aaaGai xoiq E K E I Io\)8aioi<; KEA.E'UCO.
10
10. post drcoicaSiaxdveiv verba rcdvxa Ke^eijco vel simile ante Kaxd add. N i e s e . 12. 7t6A.ecov.TCOAAXCOVLat.
Translation Marcus Agrippa to the magistrates, council and people of Cyrene, greeting. The Jews in Cyrene, on whose behalf Augustus has already written to the former praetor of Libya, Flavius, and to the other officials of the province to the effect that the sacred monies may be sent up to Jerusalem without interference, as is their ancestral custom, now complain to me that they are being threatened by certain informers and prevented (from sending these monies) on the pretext of their owing taxes, which are in fact not owed. I therefore order that these monies be restored to the Jews, who are in no way to be molested, and if sacred monies have been taken away from any cities, the persons in charge of these matters shall see that amends are made to the Jews there.
Commentary 1. On Marcus Agrippa, see above, document no. 23, commentary to 1. 1. 2 - 3 . This is the usual opening of all the letters preserved by extant inscriptions and papyri. See above, p. 18. 2-4. Augustus' letter on behalf of the Cyrenian Jews has not been preserved, and we may wonder whether it may identified with one of those alluded to by Josephus in Ant. XVI, 161. 4. The identification of this Flavius (or Fabius, as the name is preserved both in AM and in the Latin version) is problematic. Atkinson, who dates Agrippa's letter to Cyrene 23/21 BCE, as he does that sent to Ephesus, looks for a Flavius more or less contemporary to these years, and suggests that he was L. Flavius, cos. suff. in 33 BCE (PIR , III, 1943, no. 188, p. 132). See Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia", p. 321. A different opinion is held by Szramkiewicz, who follows E. Groag, "Fabius", RE, I, 12, no. 7, col. 1744 and PIR , III, 1943, no. 11, p. 95, and identifies him with the Fabius proconsul of Crete and Cyrene in a year between 16 and 13 BCE (Les gouverneurs, p. 401). This is surely possible, since from 27 BCE Cyrenaica was administered together with Crete, governed by a proconsul of praetorian status, who normally held office for one year (see Joyce Reynolds, "Cyrene", CAH , X, 1996, p. 631). Szramkiewicz's view is shared by Saulnier, "Lois 2
2
2
25. Ant. XVI,
275
169-170
romaines", p. 184, note 108, who observes that "sa designation comme preteur n'est pas incompatible avec ses pouvoirs, puisque les gouverneurs de Crete et de Cyrenaique sont de rang pretorien". 4 - 5 . On circular letters, see above, pp. 144-145. 6. On Jewish sacred monies, see document no. 22, commentary to 11. 11-13. 11. e i xivcov iepd xpruiaxa d<|)r|pr|vxai. Oliver suggests emending xivcov to xiveq: e i xiv<eq> iepd %pr|(iaxa d<|>fipT|vxai xcov 7c6A,ecov, in order not to have iepd %pf|(xaxa as subject of a plural verb (Oliver, GC, p. 578). 12-13. Augustus' and Agrippa's interest for sacred matters is well known. It also emerges from ftDGE no. 61,11. 1-11, a joint order made by Augustus and Agrippa at a time when they were sharing the consulship in 27 BCE. The pronouncement establishes that public places or sacred areas in the cities of each e n a p x e i a , along with their various properties, shall in no way fall into the possession of anyone. All such places and properties that may have come under the control of any private person are to be restored to public or sacred ownership. The person in charge of each £7cap%eia shall take measures to ensure the restitution of such places and properties to the ownership of the city and the gods. 13. On the use of the verb KeAevco in republican times, see document no. 1, commentary to 1. 28. In imperial times, the verb appears in GC nos. 2, 1. 14; 16,1. 17; 19, col. V, 1. 89; 38,1. 4. The letter opens with the salutation formula. Then we find the historical background, which deals with the reason why the letter was written, that is, the complaint of the Jews and Augustus' intervention on their behalf in the past. Finally, we find Agrippa's decision, which is expressed in the form of an order. Formal features are the usual ones of Roman official letters. The mention of Augustus' letter, which had been sent not only to Flavius, but also "to the other officials of the province" (11. 4 - 5 ) , too, finds numerous parallells in documents written both in republican and in imperial times, when circular letters are well attested (see the instances mentioned in document no. 9, commentary to 11. 15-16). Dolabella, too, asked the council of Ephesus to write his instructions "to the various cities" (document no. 9,11. 15-16), and the same letter (in substance, if not in form) was written by Norbanus Flaccus to Ephesus (document no. 16) and to Sardis (Philo, Leg. 315). 1
Agrippa's letter bears no date. Juster and Smallwood note the lack of chronological details. Scholars such as Reinhold and Oliver, on the other hand, observe that the content is strikingly similar to that of Agrippa's letter to Ephesus; it is therefore not impossible that the letter to Cyrene, too, may have been written in the same historical circumstances, that is, in the summer 1
S e e above, p. 18.
276
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
2
of 14 B C E . Johnson et al. suggest the year 13 BCE, but do not provide any reason for the choice of this date. Agrippa confirms to the Jews of Cyrene the right to collect their sacred monies and to send them to Jerusalem. Here, however, we find an additional piece of evidence which provides us with a clue as to the reasons alleged by the Greek cities for confiscating the Jews' sacred monies and for prohibiting their export to Jerusalem. The Greeks claim that the Jews are not allowed to export their sacred monies since they "owe money to the city". The Jews reject this claim objecting that they do not owe these taxes. Applebaum observes that "these xeA/n were clearly not the tributa owing to the Roman government; the latter were, it is true, collected and transmitted by the city, but it is nowhere recorded that outside Judea the Jews paid tribute as a separate body, whereas here a corporate responsibility is implied. In consequences, taxes payable to the polis are meant. The Jews complain to M. Agrippa that the transmission of the dues has been prevented by the city owing to the action of informers (cruKo^avxai). It is possible to take this word in a broad and loose sense, as meaning simply 'accusers'; i.e. that certain citizens had risen in the council or assembly of Cyrene, claimed that Jews had not paid their taxes, and proposed that steps be taken against them accordingly by preventing the transmission of the Temple dues. On the other hand, it is also possible to interpret auKO((>avxai in the strict sense of 'blackmailing informers'. In this case a different construction is possible. If we understand the word in the latter sense, the story falls into two halves, which do not fit well together. The normal meaning of xeA,r| UT) 6(|)eiA,6|Li8va would-be 'taxes not owed' (because they had been paid). But in effect blackmailing informers would not act unless they were reasonably certain that their information was well-based. Yet if the entire Jewish community owed taxes, why were informers needed to tell the polis so? In any case, informers do not deal with entire communities, but with individuals; it was not in their power to stop the Temple dues, nor is it probable that even an anti-Semitic polis would have done so because of one or two cases of arrears. If, on the other hand, the informers had been paid off, the Jews would hardly have informed the central government of the fact. From the above, two conclusions might be drawn: Josephus has here telescoped two distinct episodes, viz. a) A threat by informers to inform on some issue of whose nature we are ignorant; b) A stoppage of the Temple dues by the polis on an allegation of unpaid taxes. In both cases, the Jews believed themselves to be in the right, otherwise they would not have appealed to the government. In relation to the second episode, the polis must have had cause to believe the taxes were owing; in relation to the first the blackmailers 3
2
S e e M. Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa, G e n e v a - N e w York 1933, pp. 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 , and Oliver, GC, p. 5 7 8 . Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 117. 3
25. Ant. XVI,
169-170
277
must have had equally good grounds for supposing that they had a case. What could the issue have been? If in the instance under discussion the Cyrenian polis was sufficiently certain of its case to have imposed sanctions on non-payment, while the Jews were sufficiently certain of theirs to have appealed to authority, then xeA,r| \ir\ 6(|)eiA,6|j,eva cannot have meant 'taxes not owed because they had been paid' but 'taxes not owed because they had been illegally demanded'". Illegally, obviously, from the Jewish point of view. Unfortunately, the text does not mention the name of these taxes. This is regrettable, since their identification would be of the utmost importance for our understanding of the historical background underlying this document and perhaps also thcsimilar ones preserved by Josephus, that is, nos. 2 2 - 2 4 and 26-27. 4
Applebaum supposes that "citizens and non-citizens of Greek cities were liable to the same taxes, but metics paid a special tax.... We understand that the Jews paid certain taxes to the city as a body. This could only have been a tax equivalent to the metoikion, since no other tax, so far as we know, would have devolved upon a distinctive community in the city. This being so, the issue of Jewish status and the claim of some or all of the Jews of Cyrene to be members of the polis may have been behind the dispute. In other words, it was the Jews' status as citizens or non-citizens that was at issue". This interpretation would fit Josephus' own statements in Ant. XVI, 160 that "the Jews ... to be found in Libya were being mistreated by the cities there, although the kings had formerly granted them ioovouicxv" and that "at this particular time the Greeks were persecuting them... and doing them injury ev xolc, e m uepoix;", which Marcus translates "in their private concerns" while Applebaum refers this expression "to their 'participation' in the citizenship". Reynolds, too, tends to share Applebaum's view stating that "Augustus responded with a letter to the governor confirming ... their (Jewish) isoteleia, which perhaps meant their immunity from the metic tax paid to the cities by resident aliens". According to Applebaum, ioovouia would mean "a state of affairs, 'the ideal of a community in which the citizens had their equal share', while isoteleia would denote "a privilege bestowed by a Greek city on individuals of metic status, where they were exempted from payment of the metoikion and assumed a status intermediate between that of metics and that of citizens". 5
6
7
Unfortunately, our text does not say which taxes were meant. The taxes paid in the Greek cities were of many kinds. If we check Magie's list of the
4
Applebaum, "Jewish Status at Cyrene", pp. 2 9 7 - 2 9 9 . "Jewish Status at Cyrene", pp. 3 0 0 - 3 0 1 . "Cyrene" (supra, commentary to 1. 4), p. 6 3 3 . Applebaum, "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora", CRJNT, I, p. 4 3 6 . 5
6
7
278
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
taxes payed in the Greek city, both in Hellenistic and Roman times, we find an extremely large variety of taxes. There were transit duties and harbor-dues, taxes levied on agricultural produce brought into the city, and taxes imposed on the sales not only of merchandise in the market but also of real estate and slaves. Fees were enacted for the use of public "observation-towers" (apparently for watching for the approach of schools of fish), and license-fees were paid by prostitutes. An iaxpiKOv, or tax for the maintenance of the public health-service, was levied both at Teos and Cos. We hear also of taxes imposed on wine and wool, and taxes imposed on the sale of priesthoods. What taxes could our document have in mind? Beside the interpretation offered by Applebaum, which may be sound, we would like to suggest an alternative one. The idea comes from a passage of Josephus, where he tells us what transpired in Ionia in 14 BCE. "It was at this time", Josephus writes, "when they (Agrippa and Herod) were in Ionia, that a great multitude of Jews, who lived in its cities, took advantage of their opportunity to speak out freely, and came to them and told them of the mistreatment which they had suffered in not being allowed to observe their own laws.... They told them how they had been deprived of the monies sent as offerings to Jerusalem and of being forced to participate in military service and civic duties (oxpaxeicov Kai AeixoDpyicov) and to spend their monies for these things, although they had been exempted from these duties because the Romans had always permitted them to live in accordance with their own laws" (Ant. XVI, 27-28). Here we hear for the first, and actually only time, about an issue which was particularly problematic in Asia, at Cyrene and probably in other Greek centers as well: that of the liturgies, the public services assumed by (or rather imposed upon) the wealthier citizens as a compulsory duty toward the community. In the difficult prevailing economic situation, liturgies had apparently become an extremely problematic feature of the life of the Greek cities in the East. Upon explicit request by the envoys of Mytilene, already Julius Caesar had stated that "nobody in Mytilene is to be immune from (local) taxation" (RDGE no. 26, col. b, 11. 26-33). In Cyrenaica, less than ten years after our letter of Agrippa was written, Augustus had to deal with the problem of Greeks trying to avoid the payment of the liturgies on the claim that they enjoyed Roman citizenship. This time, Augustus stated: "If any people from the Cyrenaican province have been honored with (Roman) citizenship, I order them to perform the personal liturgies, nevertheless, in their role as Greeks, with the exception of those to whom in accordance with a law or decree of the senate (or) decree of my father or of myself, immunity from taxation has 8
9
10
8
Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 6 3 , and II, pp. 8 6 0 - 1 , note 39. Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 5 4 5 ; II, pp. 1 0 4 3 - 4 , note 17, where sources and modern works are quoted. See above, pp. 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 . 9
1 0
25. Ant. XVI,
279
169-170 11
been granted along with the citizenship". A decree issued by the province of Asia, dating, too, from the reign of Augustus, is quoted by Jones, where a mysterious allusion is made to appeals in connection with elections which may indicate that candidates were forced to stand against their w i l l . Sherk observes that the wealthy families of Asia and the Greek East in the Hellenistic world had been supported by Rome from the second century BCE. Through them Rome could extend her clientela and bind the centers of power and influence to her own cause — the old pattern in a new setting. To these new families Rome naturally granted immunities, thus putting the burdens of taxation and liturgies on those who could bear them least easily. Eventually, the cities and then the provinces voiced their displeasure. The rising number of Roman grants in that period and the growing body of privileged Roman citizens living and working in the East could certainly have contributed to the severity of the economic imbalance and poverty in the second half of the first century B C E . 12
13
It is not impossible — but we have no proof — that the specific liturgies Ionian and Cyrenian Jews referred to might have been related to something contrary and opposed to Jewish laws and practices, such as, for example, the expenses of the gymnasium and the cost of festivals, which, too, were liturgies. A link between the local cult and the controversy between the Ionian Greeks and the Jews in 14 BCE seems suggested by Ant. XII, 126, where, reporting the same episode, Josephus writes, quoting Nicolas, that "the Ionians agitated against them (the Jews)... and claimed that, if the Jews were to be their fellows (avyyeveiq), they should worship the Ionians' gods...". In any case, the few words which appear on 11. 8-9, EV 7tpo(|)d(j£i xe^cov UT) 6(()£iA,o|i£vcov, are of the utmost importance for us, inasmuch as they show that here, too, as probably in other centers of Asia, the reason why the Greeks tried to prevent the export of the Jewish monies was an economic one. From the point of view of the Jews, however, the result was a serious infringement of their traditional rights, which went back as far as Hellenistic t i m e s . The Roman government was an extremely conservative one. That may be why 14
15
11
SEG IX, 1959, no. 8, Edict III = RGE no. 102, 6/7 B C E . S e e Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, II, pp. 9 7 1 - 9 7 3 . A s for the term "liturgies" which appears on 1. 57, Oliver felt an addition was necessary: personal liturgies, while, instead of "personal", Atkinson sees a more specific reference to military service. S e e bibliographical details in Sherk, RGE, p. 132, note 6. A.H.M. Jones, The Greek City, from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford 1940, p. 184. RDGE, pp. 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 , note 14. On liturgies in the Greek cities in Roman times, see Jones, The Greek City (supra, note 12), pp. 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 . On indication of financial weakness in Cyrenaica in Augustus' time, see also Reynolds, "Cyrene" (supra, commentary to 1. 4 ) , p. 634. S e e Magie, Roman Rule, I, p. 5 9 1 . S e e also p. 6 5 3 on the festivals, the sums of money for the sacrifices and the customary banquets. S e e below, p. 4 1 1 . 1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
280
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Agrippa sided with the Jews, defined these taxes "not owed", and ordered to restore to the Jews the sacred monies which had been confiscated (11. 11-13). Nothing more is heard of the matter. Reynolds suggests that "a kind of accomodation" was reached, which is possible even if by no means certain: "By 3^4- AD, a few Jewish names appear in a list of ephebes at Cyrene and among the graffiti on monuments in the gymnasium, while in 60-1 AD one of the Cyrenian magistrates called vo|xo(|)t)X,aKe<; had a Jewish name. It would appear that some kind of accomodation had been reached between Greeks and Jews, perhaps in order to secure Jewish financial contributions to civic life, as happened in Asia Minor in the Severan period". 16
6
"Cyrene" (supra, commentary to 1. 4), p. 6 3 3 .
26. Ant. X V I , 171 12 B C E (?)
Letter written by Gaius Norbanus Flaccus to the magistrates and council of Sardis, implementing Augustus' order to the effect that the Jews may send their sacred monies to Jerusalem. Bibliography P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 111; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, pp. 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 ; Kathleen M.T. Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of Asia in the Reign of Augustus", Historia, 7, 1958, pp. 3 1 9 - 3 2 2 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 112; F. Millar, "The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces", JRS, 56, 1966, p. 161; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 8 0 - 8 1 ; M . Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literdtur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel Aviv 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, pp. 376; R. Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province a I'epoque Augusteenne: contribution a I'hisloire administrative et sociale du Principate, Paris 1975, pp. 4 2 1 - 4 2 2 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, p. 141; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, pp. 183, 197; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 119, note 47; A . M . Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 680; P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, p. 15; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 6 8 .
171
(vi. 6) rdto<; Ntop|3av6<; OA,dKK0<; dvGimaxoc; Xap5iavcov dp%ot>ai Kai PoiAfj xaipeiv. Kaiadp urn £ypa\|/£ KeXevaiv KcoX,i3ea0ai xovq 'Ioi)8aiou<; oaoi dv (oci Kaxd xo rcaxpiov ai>xoi<; E9O<; auvayayovxat; Xpf|uaxa dvarceuTteiv ei<; 'Iepoo6A/u|ia. £ypa\j/a oiJv \)ulv, iv' EiSfjxe dxi Kataap Kdycb otixcot; 9e?u)|i£v yiv£a9at. 2. Kai PouA,fi om. PW: dp%ouoi Pot>A,fj 8r|uxp coni. Niese. 3. o a o i codd. o a a coni. Niese.
5
282
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Translation Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the magistrates and council of Sardis, greeting. Caesar has written to me, ordering that the Jews, however numerous they may be, shall not be prevented from collecting sums of money, in accordance with their ancestral custom, and sending them up to Jerusalem. I have therefore written to you in order that you may know that Caesar and I wish this to be done. 1
1
Following the emendation suggested by N i e s e (see apparatus criticus), Marcus translates: "The Jews shall not be prevented from collecting sums of money, however great they may be" (Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 7 ) .
Commentary 1. On the historical identification of Norbanus Flaccus, see document no. 23, commentary to 1. 1. 1-2. The salutation formula is the usual one appearing in official letters. See above, p. 18. 2. On Kaioap as the official designation of Augustus, see above, document no. 23, commentary to 1. 1. 3. The verb Ke^euco, which usually appears in decrees issued by Roman officials (see above, document no. 22, commentary to 1. 23) indicates that this is a letter from the formal point of view, but carries the message and the substance of a formal decree. 3. Since all the manuscripts give oooi, there seems to be no reason for emending it to oaa, as Niese suggests, followed by Marcus, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 276. oooi is probably the correct reading. This is also the view of EhrebergJones (V. Ehrenberg, A.H.M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Oxford 1979, p. 137). This expression is very similar to that which appears in Augustus' letter to Norbanus preserved in document no. 23, 11. 1-2 ('Iov5aioi o o o i TCOX' OIJV e i a l v ) . The similarity suggests that the expression used by Augustus may have slipped into Norbanus' letter. As for the slight differences, they may well be the result of the process of transmission of the two texts. 4. The expression Kaxd xo Tidxptov ai)xoi<; £0o<;, along with similar ones, often appears in the documents cited by Josephus written in republican and in imperial times. We find Kaxd xd 7tdxpia £0r| in document no. 1, 11. 2 3 - 2 4 and no. 7, 11. 17-18; Kaxd xd avxcov e9r| in no. 7, 11. 9-10; Kaxd xo rcdxpiov e9o<; in no. 19, 1. 15; Kaxd xd voui^oueva £0r| in no. 20, 1. 9; and Kaxd xd rcaxpia atixcov e0r| in no. 21, 1. 7. The expression was commonly used in non-Jewish contexts too. See below, pp. 413-414. The confirmation of the Jewish right to send the sacred monies to Jerusalem
283
26. Ant. XVI, 171
is apparently due to the fact that it was an attested traditional habit. Local customs often received official Roman recognition in time. See below, p. 418. This is the only case preserved in the documents quoted by Josephus in which a Roman official writes to a Greek city transmitting not his own orders, but those coming from a higher authority. This document therefore does not represent a local decision, but simply transmits one which arrives from Rome. Augustus had written to his representative in Asia, and the latter had the task of making Augustus' will widely known. That is why Norbanus wrote this letter to a number of Greek cities. That preserved by Josephus is not the only one extant. Another similar letter was written by Flaccus to the Greek magistrates of Sardis, and is quoted by Philo in Leg. 315, actually being the only document quoted by Philo verbatim in his literary work. Its content is basically the same, while the differences concern more form than substance: rdioc; Nop|3av6<; OA,dKK0<; dvQxtnaxoq 'E^eaicov dpxoixn xdipeiv. Kaioap uxn eypayev, 'IouSaioix;, oi) dv coaiv, I8icp dpxaicp e0iajj,cp voui^eiv C D v a y o u i v o D c ; %px\\iaxa <|)ep£iv, a 7ce(i7coi)aiv eit; Iepooo^vuxr XCUTODC; OI>K YjGeAriae KCoA/ueaOai TOVTO KOIEIV. eypa\|/a ovv 1
TJUIV, iv' eiSfjie, cb<; xauxa oincoc; yivecGai K e ^ e t i e i . It is surely possible, even if it can not be proved, that Philo and Josephus used the same collection of documents, as Willrich suggests. The fact that we have two similar letters written by Flaccus to Sardis and to Ephesus suggests that other copies may have been sent to other centres of Asia too. Cases of circular letters are well attested in Roman times (see document no. 9, commentary to 11. 15-16). It is therefore surely possible that Augustus' order covered all the Jews living in Asia. 2
3
As for the time at which Norbanus wrote, we should perhaps consider a date not too far from that in which Augustus' letter reached Norbanus, in 12 BCE. 4
1
S e e Johson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 113. H. Willrich, Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-judischen Literatur, Gottingen 1900, p. 4 4 ; idem, Urkundenfalschung in der Literatur, Gottingen 1924, p. 8. S e e document no. 23,11. 1-2 and below, pp. 4 4 3 ^ 4 4 4 . S e e E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, and Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 119, note 4 7 . 2
Geschichte und hellenistisch-judischen
3
4
Leiden 1970, p. 3 1 0
Ant. X V I , 172 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
172
(vi. 7) OuSev TJITOV K a i 'IouXicx; 'Avxcovioq dvGU7taxo<; 8 Y p a \ | / e v .
Translation In no way differently did the proconsul Julius Antonius write.
Commentary Unlike what happens in other introductions given by Josephus to his documents, here the few words added by Josephus do contain a piece of additional information, and an extremely important one, since it provides the name of the Roman magistrate who wrote the letter quoted afterwards. Since the letter itself is then quoted without the beginning, which in this kind of letters usually reads something like "X to the council and magistrates of Y, greetings", it is not impossible that Josephus himself is the one responsible for having changed the form of the text. In the search for a new way of introducing his next document, Josephus may have omitted the first phrase, which contained the name of the writer of the letter, paraphrasing its content and presenting it to his readers as his own .introduction. Writing "In no way differently did the proconsul Julius Antonius write", Josephus' purpose was to link this text to the others which precede it, and at the same time to stress the fact that the content of this whole series of documents was basically the same. In any case, the name of the Roman magistrate is preserved incorrectly in all the manuscripts. He is not Julius but Julius Antonius, the son of Antony and Fulvia, consul in 10 BCE and proconsul in the province of Asia between 9 and 3 BCE. Either Josephus made a mistake while copying, or the name was changed from the unusual praenomen Julius to the more well-known Julius during the process of transmission of the text. In any event, this is not 1
2
1
P. Groebe, "Julius Antonius", RE, I, 2, 1894, no. 2 2 , coll. 2 5 8 4 - 2 5 8 5 . On this name, see Ephrat Habas (Rubin), "Joul(l)us — a Jewish N a m e in Late Antiquity?" (forthcoming). 2
27. Ant. XVI,
285
172-173
an isolated case. Groag and Stein observe that "apud scriptores praenomen insolitum a librariis plerumque corruptum est". 3
27. Ant.
XVI, 172-173
4 B C E , February 13 (?)
Letter written by Julius Antonius to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, confirming the Jews' right to follow their own laws and customs and to send their offerings to Jerusalem, which had been given to them by Augustus and by Agrippa. Bibliography P. Viereck, Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur, Gottingen 1888, p. 111; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I' empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 150; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums, HI, Stuttgart-Berlin 1923, p. 127; PIR , I, 1933, no. 8 0 0 , pp. 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 ; Kathleen M.T. Atkinson, "The Governors of the Province of A s i a , i n the Reign of Augustus", Historia, 7, 1958, p. 3 2 0 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 120; Leah Roth-Gerson, The Civil and Religious Status of the Jews in Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to Constantine, 336 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Hebr.), Ph.D., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972, pp. 8 8 - 8 9 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 9 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980 = M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1991, p. 376; R. Szramkiewicz, Les gouverneurs de province a l'epoque augusteenne: contribution a I'histoire administrative et sociale du Principate, Paris 1975, p. 3 7 5 ; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 1 4 2 - 3 ; Christiane Saulnier, "Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josephe", RB, 88, 1981, p. 184; J.M. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, R o m e 1984, p. 4 6 0 ; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 119, note 48; A.M. Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani, II, Milano 1988, p. 6 8 0 ; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 6 8 . 2
172
2
3 PIR ,
(vi. 7) 'E(|)£aicov dpxouoiv {3o\)A,fj 5r|(xcp %aipeiv. oi ev xfj 'Aoia KaxoiKoiJvxeq 'IouSaioi eiSot^ OePpouapioic; 8ncaio5oxo\)vxi |LIOI EV E(|)eacp imeSei^av K a i a a p a xov Eefkxoxov Kai 'Aypi7C7uav
I, 1933, no. 8 0 0 , p. 153.
286
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
cuyK£xcopr|K£vai auxolc; xpf\QQa\, xoi<; i5ioi<; VOLIOK; Kai EGEOIV, drcapxaq x e , d<; EKaoxoq auxcov EK Tfj<;
5
i5ia<; TtpoaipeaEax; e t i o e f t e i a q EVEKO xfjt; Tipoc; xo
Geiov
173
*
dvaKouiSfjq
GULUtopEDOuevo-uc; TUOIEIV
dv£LL7to5iGxa><;. fjxovv XE onatq Kdycb 6ux)ico<; xoi<; imo xoij EEpaoxou Kai 'AypiTnia 8oG£iaiv xfiv £|if|v yvc6|ir|v PePauooco. ULtdc; ouv Pot>A.oum Ei8£vai EUE xoiq xou ZEPaoxcO Kai 'AypiTwta Po\)?ir|uaoi ODVE7iixpE7U£iv ai)xoi(; xpfjaGai Kai 7ioi£iv Kaxd xd 7tdxpia %copi<; EiJ-TioSiaixoi).
10
8. post 9 e t o v lacunam statuit Coeceji. 11. e u e Coeceji: e v codd.
Translation To the magistrates, council and people o f Ephesus, greeting. When I was administering justice in Ephesus on the Ides o f February, the Jews dwelling in Asia pointed out to me that Caesar Augustus and Agrippa have permitted them to follow their own laws and customs, and to bring the offerings, which each o f them makes o f his own free will and out o f piety toward the Deity, travelling together under escort (to Jerusalem) without being impeded in any way. And they asked that I confirm by my own decision the rights granted by Augustus and Agrippa. I therefore wish you to know that in agreement with the will o f Augustus and Agrippa I permit them to live and act in accordance with their ancestral customs without interference.
Commentary I. The phrase lacks a subject. On the possible causes o f this fragmentary state, see above, p. 284. 2. This is one o f the few instances, in the documents quoted by Josephus, in which the Jews mentioned are not those living in a particular place but are defined in a general fashion as "the Jews dwelling in Asia". 3. The administration of justice, once a year, was one o f the tasks o f the Roman governor. On the role o f Ephesus as one o f the thirteen assize-centres in the province o f Asia, see G.P. Burton, "Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration o f Justice under the Empire", JRS, 65, 1975, pp. 9 2 - 9 3 , and A.D. Macro, "The Cities o f Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium", ANRW, II, 7, 2, 1980, p. 671. 4 - 5 . About the rights accorded to the Jews by Augustus and Agrippa we learn from documents nos. 2 2 - 2 5 . The verb ovyxcopEco is a technical one, used to mean the concession o f grants by the Roman authorities. It also appears in document no. 21,1. 8; CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 1. 59 and col. V, 1.
27. Ant. XVI,
287
172-173
88; GC nos. 44, 1. 4; 69, 1. 7; 107,1. 17; 117,1. 10; 177, 1. 14; 215,1. 25, 197 CE. 5. The expression xpfjoGai xoiq i8ioi<; e 0 e a i v appears many times in the documents quoted by Josephus, but this is the only instance in which the word VOJIOK; appears too. This is particularly meaningful in view of the fact that conquered peoples were usually entitled only to follow their own customs, while the right to follow "their own laws" was usually granted only to the Greek cities. This difference however may have been only theoretical. In practice, in the case of the Jews there was no real difference, since the Jewish customs were themselves based on the Jewish law, the Torah. See below, pp. 416—417. Whether the author of the letter was aware of this distinction we cannot know, and we may not rule out the possibility that the expression was used here in a mechanical and routine fashion, without a particular technical meaning. 6. Literally, the term d7iap%r| means first fruits. Contributions of first fruits were not unknown in the ancient world. IG II no. 2336 contains a record of contributions given by the annual officials of Athens for a festival at Delos for seven consecutive years, from 103/2 to 97/6 BCE (from which we learn that the Athenians decided to send the Pythais to Delphi at eight-year intervals instead of at irregular intervals). The charge involved not only the dispatch of the procession with the first fruits, but also the supervision during the intervening years of the collection of revenues for the next celebration. The Pythais was a special Athenian embassy to Delphi to offer homage to Apollo with sacrifices and games, to present the traditional "first fruits" and to bring the symbolic sacred fire from Delphi to Athens. The procession had religious, political and cultural purposes. See S.V. Tracy, IG II 2336. Contributors of First Fruits for the Pythais, Meisenheim am Glan 1982, pp. 3, 101, 146-152. A decree from Athens, too, mentions the Eleusinian first fruits as early as the fifth century BCE (SEG XXXIII, 1983, no. 6). In the historical period under consideration, the offering of the first fruits seem to have been brought to Jerusalem also from the diaspora. See above, document no. 18, commentary to 11. 7 - 8 . In Leg. 156-7, Philo writes that: "He (Augustus) knew too that they collect money for sacred purposes from their d7r,ap%ai and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices". Here, however, the term dTtapxai may also have the general meaning of "offerings". Smallwood maintains that the term anapxr] was used "not only in the sense of literal 'first fruits', payable only by an agricultural and pastoral people and confined to the land of Israel... but also to denote other offerings such as that of the half-shekel.... The term d7iap%r| is used for this tax by Philo in Spec.Leg. I, 77, and there is little doubt that it is mainly to it that Leg. 156-7 and other passages in Philo and Josephus ... refer" (E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970, pp. 237-8). 2
2
6-8. The description of the Jews sending the Jewish monies "each out
288
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
of his free will and out of piety toward the Deity" probably derives from a Jewish author. That the Jews themselves had brought their requests before Julius Antonius clearly emerges from 1. 9, where we read that "they (the Jews) asked that...". 8-9. Saulnier interprets these lines to mean that the sums of money were sent to Jerusalem in cash, and not in the form of credit letters (Saulnier, "Lois romaines", p. 186, note 120). 9 - 1 1 . The verb Pepaioco often appears in Roman documents to mean official confirmations of rights and privileges which had been previously granted. See below, p. 307. The formal features of this letter are the usual ones which appear in those preserved by inscriptions and papyri. We notice, however, the lack of a subject in the first sentence, and of the farewell formula at the end. The content is the same as that appearing in the documents which precede it, which all deal with the right given to the Jews to send to Jerusalem their sacred monies. Here, however, we find an additional detail concerning the way in which the monies were sent to Jerusalem, namely, the verb G\)|i7Cope\)O|0.evoD(;, which Marcus translates "travelling together under escort (to Jerusalem)". This verb reminds us of Josephus' description when dealing with Mesopotamia Jews: "There is also a city Nisibis situated on the same bend of the river. The Jews, in consequence, trusting to the natural strength of these places, used to deposit there the two-drachm coins which it is the national custom for all to contribute to the cause of God, as well as any other dedicatory offerings.... From there these offerings were sent to Jerusalem at the appropriate time. Many tens of thousands of Jews shared in the convoy of these monies..." (Ant. XVIII, 312-3). Philo offers a similar description in Leg. 311, and in De spec. leg. I, 76-78, where we read: "The revenues of the Temple are derived not only from landed estates but also from other and far greater sources.... For it is ordained that everyone, beginning at his twentieth year, should make an annual contribution of first-fruits (drcapxaq).... In fact, practically in every city there are banking places for the holy money where people regularly come and give their offerings. And at stated times there are appointed to carry the sacred tribute envoys selected on their merits, from every city those of the highest repute, under whose conduct the hopes of each and all will travel safely. For it is on these first-fruits, as prescribed by the law, that the hopes of the pious rest". 1
2
1
See above, p. 18. On the passages of the Mishnah dealing with the times of the year in which Jewish m o n i e s were brought to Jerusalem from the diaspora, see S. Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Hebr.), Jerusalem 1985, pp. 5 7 - 5 8 . See also above, p. 2 5 3 , note 12. 2
27. Ant. XVI,
172-173
289
The content of this letter written by Julius Antonius is extremely similar to that of the documents which precede it. In one respect, however, this letter is unique and captures our attention. Three times in thirteen lines we are told that the same rights — to send their monies to Jerusalem, and to live and act in accordance with their ancestral customs — had been already given to the Jews by Augustus and by Agrippa. The first time, the Jews themselves point out to Julius that Caesar Augustus and Agrippa have permitted them to follow their own laws and customs and to bring their offerings (11. 3-6); they therefore ask the confirmation of the rights granted by Augustus and Agrippa (11. 9-11). Julius confirms and comunicates to the Greek magistrates of Ephesus that he wants them (.o know that, in accordance with the will of Augustus and Agrippa (11. 11-13), he permits the Jews to live and act in accordance with their ancestral customs. From these repetitions two conclusions may be drawn. One, the grant of the rights by Augustus and by Agrippa was of the utmost importance as a legal precedent which was legally binding. Julius does not make a new decision, he simply confirms their policy. The preservation of the status quo is a common pattern of Roman administration. Dealing with the episode which took place in Ionia in 14 BCE, too, Josephus tells us that "the Jews won the right to use their own customs... for Agrippa gave his opinion that it was not lawful for him to make a new rule" (unSev avxcb Kcuvi^eiv ec^eivai: Ant. XII, 126). This reminds us of the letter written to the city of Kyme by the governor of Asia Vinicius, in which he was very careful to give credit to Augustus for the original legal concept underlying his decision (RDGE no. 61,11. 12-22). From these repetitions we also understand that the grants given by the Romans had practically no value at all without further confirmation. From the documents quoted by Josephus we get the impression that the period in which Roman decisions concerning the Jews were respected was, in practice, the very moment in which the Roman letters and edicts reached the council of the Greek cities. Shortly afterwards, which may have been a few years later, but possibly only a few months later, they were disregarded and further confirmations were needed. The date, as it appears in the document, is not complete. We have the month and the day, the Ides of February, but not the year. What is sure is that Julius Antonius was consul in 10 BCE and died in 2 BCE. Johnson et al. suggest the period between 9 and 6 B C E . Atkinson observes that "his proconsulship must precede that of Asinius Gallus, in 6/5 B.C., because in the first half of 5 B.C. the name 'Iollas' had already been assumed by one of the leading citizens of Sardis. With regard to the date of the edict cited by Josephus,... the sacred revenues of the Jews in Ephesus may well have 3
4
3
S e e below, pp. 4 1 9 ^ 2 7 .
4
Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes,
p. 120.
290
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
been the subject of an imperial enactment in their favour at approximately the same time as the sacred revenues of the temple of Artemis, which were granted afresh by Rome in 6/5 B.C.... The Ides of February mentioned in the edict of Julius will then be those of 6 B.C.". We may, however, observe that the appearance of the name Jollas at Sardis in 5 BCE and the fact that the revenues of the temple of Artemis were cared for in 6/5 BCE cannnot be considered as decisive elements for establishing a date for our letter. From the sources it emerges instead that Julius was proconsul in Asia from 9 to 3 BCE, except for the year 6 / 5 , in which C. Asinius Gallus was proconsul in his place. It therefore follows that Julius was proconsul both before and after Asinius, and this may well explain why in 5 BCE the name Jollas was already popular at Sardis. Juster may therefore be correct suggesting the year 4 BCE, which is also the date proposed by Meyer and by Wickgren. 5
6
7
8
Ant. X V I , 1 7 4 - 1 7 8 Josephus' C l o s i n g C o m m e n t s
174
175
176
(vi. 8) Tama uev oiJv 7tape0e|a,r|v E £ d v d y K n c ; , ETCEI5TI lieMouoiv a i xcov fpexeptDV Ttpd^Ecov dvaypac^ai xo 7TAEOV eiq xovq "EXXr\vaq i e v a i , SEIKVUC; cmxoic; oxi naar\q xi\xf\q dvcoGev ETCixvyxdvovxEt; o\)8ev xcov rcaxptcov £KcoA,ti0r||i£v vno xcov dp%dvxcov rcpaxxEiv, aXXa Kai awEpyouueGa xd xf\q ©pnoKEiat; E^OVXEC; Kai xcov EI<; xov GEOV xificov. rcoiotium 8E 7uoM,dKi<; avxcov xnv (ivr|UT|v EmSiaMtaxxcov xd yevr\, Kai xdq EUJtE^uKmac; xoic; d^oyioxon; fuacov XE KOKEIVCOV uiaouc; aixiaq \)7C£^aipo\)|Li£vo(;. eQeci \iev yap O\)5EV EOXIV yevoq 6 xoiq avxolq ae\ xpfjxai, Kai Kaxd 7x6A-EIC; EaG' 07ir| Tco^A,fj<; EyYtyvoiiEvrit; xf\q Sia^opaq* 6. o-wepyotx; jia9ri|j.dTC0v A M W : defendebamur Lat.
5
"The Governors of the Province Asia", p. 327. This v i e w is shared by Szramkiewicz (Les governeurs, pp. 3 7 5 , 5 1 8 ) and by Saulnier ("Lois romaines", p. 184, note 109). Stern, too, expresses his doubts concerning the argumentation presented by Atkinson: Stern, "The Documents", p. 3 7 6 , note 4 6 . PIR , I, 1933, s.v. Iullus Antonius, no. 8 0 0 , p. 154 and PIR , I, 1933, s.v. C. Asinius Gallus, no. 1229, p. 2 4 5 . Juster, Les Juifs, p. 150; Meyer, Ursprung und Anfdnge, p. 127; Wickgren, Loeb ed., VIII, p. 2 7 7 , note c. 6
7
8
2
2
Ant. XVI, 174-178.
Josephus'
Closing
Comments
291
177 TO 5iKtxiov Se 7tdoiv dvGpc67r.oi<; ouoicoq emxriSei)ODOI A/uoixeA,eoxaxov 6v "EXXr\Gi xe Kai |3apPdpoi<;, ov nXelaxov oi rcap' fiuiv v6|ioi Xoyov e%ovxe<; d7caaiv fjudq, e i KaGapcoc; euuivoueiv ai>xoi<;, eiWouq 178 Kai tyiXovq a7cepyd^ovxai. 8i6 Kai xafjxa 7cap' eKeivcov fiulv a7caixr|xeov, co<; 8eov OVK ev xfj Sia())opg xcov emxnSeuLidxcov oieoGai xo dAAoxpiov, &XX' * ev xco node, KaA,OKayaGiav e7iixr|8eico(; e%eiv xoDxo yap KOIVOV d7caoi Kai ILIOVOV iKavov 8iaoc6£eiv xov xcov dvGpco7tcov piov. ercdveiini 8e TcdX^iv en;i xd a w e / f l xr\q iaxopiai;. eTtiTTi5eiJO\)ai
-
18. 18. 20.
coni. Wikgren. £JtiTn5e6ovT£<; codd. et Niese. studeatur Lat. £7ciTT|5£t)£Tai Coeceji. drcavTnreov coni. Naber. (be,. KEiaBai Richards et Shutt. post aXX lacunam statuit N i e s e .
20.
dv£jriTn8£i(oq con. Richards et Shutt.
13-14.
Translation Now it was necessary for me to cite these decrees since this account of our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect and were not prevented by our rulers from practising any of our ancestral customs but, on the contrary, even had their co-operation in preserving our religion and our way of honouring God. And if I frequently mention these decrees, it is to reconcile the other peoples to us and to remove the causes for hatred which have taken root in thoughtless persons among us as well as among them. For there is no people which always follows the same customs, and it also happens that there are great differences among cities. And it is most profitable for all men, Greeks and barbarians alike, to practise justice, about which our laws are most concerned and, if we sincerely abide by them, they make us well disposed and friendly to all men. We therefore have a right to expect this same attitude from them, for one should not consider foreignness a matter of differences in practice but of whether there is a proper attitude to goodness. For this is common to all men and alone enables society to endure. But I must once more resume the course of my narrative.
Commentary These paragraphs, which conclude Josephus' citation of the documents written
292
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
in the Augustan era, carry meaningful and different messages, which have been thoroughly examined and illustrated by Troiani. Josephus addressed Greek readers first and foremost. He explicitly states that his quotations verbatim of the documents are intended to remind the Greeks of the respect shown to the Jews by the rulers (presumably the rulers of the moment, that is, the Roman ones) and of their traditional policy of protection toward Jewish customs. We may obviously doubt whether Josephus really believed that his quotation of documents could have a result at a practical level. The fact remains that Josephus took the trouble of presenting to his readers an impressive quantity of documents from Hellenistic and Roman times, which thoroughly exemplify the idea that the coexistence and the collaboration between the Jews and their pagan rulers was not only possible in theory, but real in practice. Alongside this purpose, Josephus tells his readers that by quoting his documents he also wants "to reconcile the other peoples" to the Jews, and "to remove the causes for hatred which have taken root in thoughtless persons among us as well as among them". The relations between Jews and non Jews did not become easier after the repression of the Jewish revolt of 66-70. According to Troiani, by stressing and emphasizing a whole tradition of coexistence and collaboration with the pagan ruler in the history of the Jewish people, Josephus may have also wanted to cover, to negate and to invalidate the unrest prevailing in the Jewish diaspora in his days. The need for reconciliation was a real one. At the same time, he probably also wanted to justify his personal choices. We must not forget that, while in Rome, Josephus himself had been personally accused of revolutionary intentions (or acts?), as we learn from Bell. VI, 448 and from Vita 424-425, 4 2 9 . 1
2
3
What makes a real difference between peoples, Josephus stresses, are not the different customs followed, since customs differ across time and place, so that, for example, differences and dissensions are apparently found also in the Greek cities themselves. For Josephus, what really matters is the difference between peoples who observe justice and goodness and peoples who do not. TO SiKaiov and f) KaX,OKaya9ia are the most important, the universal values which are "common to all men and alone enable society to endure". In this respect, Josephus adds, the Jewish laws, if correctly followed (ei Kct0apco<; eujievouev oruioiq), are especially effective in promoting friendship between peoples. The same idea is found also in Ant. XVI, 42, where we read: "There
1
L. Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione della storia ellenistica e romana contenuta nelle 'Antichita Giudaiche' di Giuseppe (libri X I I - X X ) " , Studi Ellenistici, I, ed. B. Virgilio, Pisa 1984, pp. 3 9 - 5 0 . See Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione" (supra, note 1), p. 4 1 . Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione" (supra, note 1), p. 4 5 . See also Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 3 6 9 - 3 7 1 . 2
3
Ant. XVI, 174-178.
Josephus'
Closing
293
Comments
is nothing hostile to mankind in our customs, but they are all pious and consecrated with saving righteousness and common justice (8iKcuoo"\)vr|)''. Stressing the importance of following justice and goodness, Josephus surely had in mind also his Jewish public. Quoting the documents, which are the actual proofs of Roman support for the Jews, is the means used by Josephus for inserting the history of the Jewish people into the course of the general history regulated by this justice, which has here the meaning of Providence — the same Providence which is at the base of the Roman decrees quoted, the same Providence which made possible and protected the Roman empire itself. The message is clear. The person who does not conform to the main lines of this providential
4
On this message, see the works cited by Troiani, "Per un'interpretazione", p. 4 7 , note 4 8 : H. Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum, gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage, Leiden 1972, p. 142 and W . C . Van Unnik, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller, Heidelberg 1978, pp. 4 1 - 5 4 .
Ant. X I X , 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
278
279
280
(v. 2) Exaoidc^exai 8e Kax' auxov xov %povov 'IcvuSaicov xd rcp6<; "EM/nvac; e m xfjc; 'AA,e£av8pecov noXewc,. xeA£uxYjoavxo<; yap xov Vdiov xo Iou5aicov eGvoc; e m dpxn<; xfj*; e K e i v o u xexa7teivcou,evov Kai 8eivco<; vno xcov 'AA,e£avSpecov \)(3piouevov dveGaparjae xe Kai ev on'koiq euGecoc; fjv. Kai KXav8io<; emaxeAAei xco e7uap%oijvxi Kaxd xf)v Aiyurcxov cbaxe xnv oxdaiv Kaxaoxeitaxi, rceujiet 8e Kai 8idypau|j.a 7r,apaKeKA,r|K6xcov avxov 'Aypimtot) xe Kai 'HpcoSou xcov PaciAecov elq xe xfjv 'A^e^dv8peiav Kai 2/upiav yeypauusvov xouxov xov xpo7COV. 1-2. 'Iou5aicov. 'Io\)8aioi<; E. 3. y a p om. E. 4. edvoc,. yevoq E. 5. \)Ppio|j.evov A. Pia^ouevov M W E . 7. TO) enapxo'GvTi Dindorf: ijt7tap%ot)VTi codd. praefecto Lat.: •UTcapxouvTi coni. Niese.
Translation About this time, there arose a feud between Jews and Greeks in the city of Alexandria. For upon the death of Gaius, the Jews, who had been humiliated under his rule and grievously abused by the Alexandrians, took heart again and at once armed themselves. Claudius commanded the prefect of Egypt to put down the factional war. In addition, on the petition of Kings Agrippa and Herod, he issued an edict to Alexandria and Syria to the following effect.
Commentary Josephus presents to his readers the historical background which preceded the two edicts issued by Claudius concerning the Jews. Josephus' method here is the same followed in books fourteen and sixteen of the Antiquities, where the documents written in republican times are inserted while dealing with Caesar, and those issued in Augustan times are cited while writing about Herod. Similarly, in the section dealing with the emperor Claudius,
28. Ant. XIX,
295
280-285
Josephus inserts two documents issued by the emperor concerning Jewish matters, giving them a short introduction. The meaning of this introduction, however, is difficult to grasp in view of the contradictions appearing between the facts exposed here and the testimony of the edict which follows. In order to understand it thoroughly, we must take into consideration not only the edict quoted by Josephus but also the information preserved by another document issued by Claudius, which is not quoted by Josephus, that is, Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians preserved in CPJ II, no. 153. Josephus' introduction will therefore be examined in the historical commentary to document no. 2 8 . 1
28. Ant. X I X , 2 8 0 - 2 8 5 41 C E
Edict issued by Claudius confirming the traditional religious rights of Alexandrian Jews. Bibliography H. Willrich, Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jiidischen Geschichte und Literatur, Gottingen 1900, p. 4 2 ; idem, "Caligula", Klio, 3 , 1903, pp. 4 0 4 - 5 ; E. von Doubschuetz, "Jews and Antisemites in Ancient Alexandria", AJT, 8, 1904, p. 7 3 7 , note 20; W. Schubart, "Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus", AP, 5, 1913, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans V empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 151; A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Agyptens unter romischer Herrschaft, Stuttgart 1915, p. 162; J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und judische Geschichte, Leipzig 1 9 2 1 , p. 227, note 1; H.I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt, London 1924, pp. 1 5 - 1 6 ; G. D e Sanctis, "Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria", RFIC, 5 2 , 1924, pp. 4 9 0 - 4 9 9 = Scritti minori, ed. A. Ferrabino, S. A c c a m e , Roma 1976, pp. 1 0 7 - 1 1 5 ; T. Reinach, "L'empereur Claude et les Juifs d'apres un nouveau document", REJ, 7 8 - 7 9 , 1924, pp. 1 2 3 - 1 2 6 ; P. Jouguet, "Une lettre de l'empereur Claude aux Alexandrins", Journal des Savants n.s. 2 3 , 1925, p. 16; M. Engers, "Der Brief des Kaisers Claudius an die Alexandriner", Klio, 20, 1926, pp. 1 7 3 - 1 7 8 ; H.S. Jones, "Claudius and the Jewish Question at A l e x a n d r i a " , / ^ , 16, 1926, pp. 2 5 - 2 7 ; T. Zielinski, "L'empereur Claude et l'idee de la domination mondiale des Juifs", Revue de T Universite de Bruxelles, 32, 1 9 2 6 - 7 , pp. 1 3 0 - 1 3 2 ; H. Dessau, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, II, 2 , Berlin 1930, pp. 6 7 2 - 6 7 5 ; A. Momigliano, "Un nuovo frammento dei cosi detti 'Atti dei martiri pagani'", Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 7, 1931 = Quinto Contributo alia storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, II, R o m a 1975, p. 7 9 5 ; A . von Premerstein, "Das Datum des Prozesses des Isidoros in den sogenannten heidnischen Martyrerakten", Hermes, 6 7 , 1932, pp. 1 8 2 - 1 8 5 ; V.M. Scramuzza, "The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors towards Judaism", in: The Beginnings of Christianity, I, 5, ed. F.J. Foakes-Jackson, K. Lake, London 1933, pp. 2 9 0 - 1 ; idem, The Emperor Claudius, Cambridge
1
S e e below, pp. 3 1 2 - 3 1 4 .
296
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
1940, pp. 7 4 - 7 7 ; 1 3 1 , 2 7 6 , note 5; H.A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, Oxford 1954, pp. 1 2 0 - 1 , note 4; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, pp. 4 0 9 ^ 1 1 5 ; idem, CPJ, I, Cambridge 1957, pp. 6 8 - 6 9 ; II, Cambridge 1960, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 ; A.C. Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1 9 6 1 , pp. 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ; A. Momigliano, Claudius the Emperor and his Achievements, Cambridge 1961, pp. 3 0 - 3 1 , 9 6 - 9 8 , note 25; A . N . Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford 1963, pp. 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 ; H. Bardon, Les Empereurs et les lettres latines d'Auguste a Hadrian, Paris 1968, p. 139; E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1 9 7 3 , pp. 3 9 3 - 3 9 4 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wurzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980, p. 377; Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, pp. 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 ; D . Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstucken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', Chiron, 5, 1975, pp. 3 2 6 - 3 3 0 ; A. Kasher, "The Circumstances of Claudius Caesar's Edict and of his Letter to the Alexandrians" (Hebr.), Zion, 3 9 , 1975, pp. 1-7; idem, "Les Circonstances de la promulgation de l'edit de l'empereur Claude et de sa lettre aux Alexandrins (41 ap. J.-C.)", Semitica, 2 6 , 1976, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 8 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 2 4 5 - 2 4 6 ; A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 6 8 5 ; Eleanor Huzar, "Claudius — the Erudite Emperor", ANRW, II, 3 2 , 1, 1984, pp. 6 3 8 - 6 4 0 ; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 115; eadem, "Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule: a N e w Approach," in W . S . Green ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism, V: Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context, Brown Judaic Studies, 3 2 , Atlanta 1985, p. 29; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Tubingen 1985, pp. 2 6 2 - 2 8 9 ; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III, 1, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, pp. 9 2 - 9 3 , 128; P. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. A Sociological Approach, Cambridge 1986, p. 9 2 ; Barbara Levick, Claudius, N e w H a v e n - L o n d o n 1990, pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 ; D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Tubingen 1990, pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 5 ; B. Wander, Trennungsprozesse zwischen friihen Christentum und Judentum im I. Jh. n.Chr., Tubingen 1994, p. 2 2 1 ; L. Troiani, "The TtoAiteia of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, p. 13; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), Edinburgh 1996, p. 2 6 3 , note 12; Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, Stuttgart 1996, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 1 3 ; Sylvie Honigman, "Philon, Flavius Josephe, et la citoyennete alexandrine: vers une utopie politique", JJS, 4 8 , 1, 1997, p. 6 7 , note 17; P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge-London 1997, pp. 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 , 149.
281
(v. 2) TiPepioq KAmiSioq Kaioap £e|3aox6<; Tep(xaviKoq 8r|LiapxiKfj<; e^oi)aia<; ^eyei. emyvoix; dveKaGev xoix; ev 'AA,e^av8peig 'Ioi)8aiou<; 'AA,e£avSpeiq A.£you£vov<; a v y K a x o i K i a 0 £ v x a < ; xoiq TcpcoXOK; £i)0i) Kaipotq 'Ate^avSpeiJoi Kai ioriq rcoAaxEiaq rcapd xcov PaaiA»£cov x£X£uxoxa<;, Ka0cb<; <j>av£pov 2. 2. 4.
dpxiepevq jieyiaTOq post repjiaviicoq add. Hudson. keyei. xmaxoc, A,eyei E. ouyKaxoiKiaeevxaq coni. Dindorf: o"uyKaT(OKia0£VTa<; (-no-e-W) codd.
5
28. Ant. XIX,
282
283
284
280-285
eyevexo EK XCOV ypamidxcov xcov jcap' avxoic; Kai xcov Siaxayudxcov, Kai jxexd xo xfj fpexepa fjyEux)v i a 'AA,e^dv8peiav i m o xov XePaaxofJ \)jcoxax9f|vai 7C8(|)t)X,dx9ai auxoig xd SiKaia imo xcov 7i£ux|)9£vxcov £7udp%cov Kaxd 8iac|)6poi)<; xpovotx; ur|8£|iiav XE d|i(|)ic7pf|xriaiv jtEpi xovxcov y£vo|i£VT|v xcov SiKaicov avxolc,, dua Kai Ka9' 6 v Kaipov 'AKvXaq r\v EV 'AX£^av8p£ia x£A,£i)xr)C7avxo<; xofj xcov 'Ioi>8aicov £ 9 v d p x o i ) xov EE^aaxov uf| KEKCOAAJKEVOI £9vdpxa<; yiyv£0"9ai PouA,6|j.£vov \)7cox£xdx9ai EKdaxoix; EJIUEvovxat; xoi<5 iSioiq E9EOTV Kai uri 7capa|3aiv£iv dvayKa^ou-Evovi; xf|v Ttdxpiov 9pr|GK£iav, 'AA,£^av8p£i<; 8E £7r.ap9fjvai Kaxd xcov nap' a\)xoi<; IovSaicov ETCI xcov rdt'ou Kaiaapo<; X P ° u Sid xfjv 7coX,A,f|v d7covoiav K a i jcapa^poauvriv, dxi \ir\ jiapa(3fjvai r|9£A,r|a£v xo 'Ioi)8aicov E9VO<; xf|v Ttdxpiov 9pr|aK£iav K a i 9EOV 7 c p o a a y o p £ t ) £ i v auxov, xaTt£ivcoaavxo<; amove,- $ov\o\iai ur|8£v 8 i d xf|v ra'i'oi) Ttapa<|)poavvriv xcov SiKaicov xco 'Ioi)8aicov E9VEI TtaparcE7cxcoK£vai, ())DA,doa£a9ai 8' avxolc, Kai xd 7tp6x£pov 8iKaic6(iaxa EU|IEVOI)OI XOI<; iSion; E9EOIV, dux|)oXEpoiq XE 8iaK£X,£i)0|Liai xoiq (XEpECfi 7c^£iaxriv Ttoif|o a o 9 a i Ttpovoiav, 6na>q ur|8£uia xapaxfi yEvnxai fiExd xo 7cpox£9fjvai \iov XO 8idxay^ia. O V ( O V
285
297
x
10
15
20
25
30
18. eniyvovq... 9pr|aKeiav om. E. 19. '(ariq noA-itetai; xolq aXXoic, 'AXe^avSpeuai T£TUXT|K:6T(OV post IouSatcov add. E. 27. xoiq l8ioi<; A: 'Iov8aicov MWE. 30. 8idtaY|ia A: Siaypauiia MWE: dicta Lat.
Translation Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, of tribunician power, proclaims. Having from the first known that the Jews in Alexandria called Alexandrians were fellow colonizers from the very earliest times jointly with the Alexandrians and received potential citizenship from the kings, as is manifest from the documents in their possession and from the edicts; and that after Alexandria was made subject to our empire by Augustus their rights were preserved by the prefects sent from time to time, and that these rights of theirs have never been disputed; moreover, that at the time when Aquila was at Alexandria, on the death of the ethnarch of the Jews, Augustus did not prevent the continued appointment of ethnarchs, desiring that the several "equal civic rights": Feldman, Loeb ed., IX, p. 347. 1
1
298
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
subject peoples should abide by their own customs and not be compelled to violate the religion of their fathers; and learning that the Alexandrians rose up in insurrection against the Jews in their midst in the time of Gaius Caesar, who through his great folly and madness humiliated the Jews because they refused to transgress the religion of their fathers by addressing him as a god; I desire that none of their rights should be lost to the Jews on account of the madness of Gaius, but that their former rights also be preserved to them, while they abide by their own customs; and I enjoin upon both parties to take the greatest precaution to prevent any disturbance arising after the posting of my edict.
Commentary 1-2. The titles of Claudius are preserved in an incomplete fashion. We find neither cnjTOKpdTtop nor dp%iep£\)<; uiyiaxoq. Hudson suggests adding to the text dpxiepetx; iieyiaxoq, which translates pontifex maximus, which appears among Claudius' titles in document no. 29,1. 2, and his suggestion is accepted by Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes, p. 137, but not by Feldman (Loeb ed., IX, p. 344, note c). As for the fact that there is no number after the mention of the 5nnapxiKfj<; e^ovGiac,, it may mean that the document was written in its first year, 41 CE (see Oliver, GC, p. 583). This date is also suggested by the historical context (see below, pp. 310-311). 2. Xeyei. This is the usual opening of imperial edicts, which appears from as early as the end of the republican era throughout the imperial age (see above, p. 19 and document no. 22, commentary to 1. 2). It also appears in Claudius' edict from Epidaurus (GC no. 26,1. 2, 45 or 46 CE). 3. emyvotit; introduces the reasons which prompted the edict. This opening appears also in other imperial edicts. See below, pp. 304, 321. 3—4. xoix; ev 'A?i£^av5p£ig 'Ioi)5aiou<; 'A?i££av5p£i<; teyouivovc;. A few cases are attested in which the Jews living in the diaspora did enjoy Greek citizenship (they are examined in S. Applebaum, "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora", CRJNT, I, pp. 443-441). This, however, did not apply to all the Jewish inhabitants of the city, who were not, en bloc, legally entitled to be called "Alexandrians" (see P. Jouguet, La vie municipale dans VEgypte romaine, Paris 1911 [repr. 1968], p. 19 and W. Schubart, "Alexandrinische Urkunden", pp. 108-109), as we understand from the cancelled second line appearing in CPJ II, no. 151, from Augustus' time, and from CPJ II, no. 153, where Claudius addresses the Alexandrians and the Jews separately, and proclaims that the Jews live in a city "which is not their own" (col. V, 11. 8 8 - 9 9 . For a different interpretation of this expression, see Kasher, The Jews, pp. 325-6. See also Smallwood, The Jews, p. 229, note 40). 4 - 5 . The notion that the Jews were fellow colonizers of the Greeks "from
28. Ant. XIX,
280-285
299
the very earliest times" is vague. In all probability, the Jews did not arrive at the time of Alexander as Josephus claims in Bell. II, 487 and in C.Ap. II, 35. A Jewish migration to Egypt under Alexander is not mentioned by Aristeas nor by Hecateus. In C.Ap. II, 43, Josephus writes that Alexander settled the Jews in Alexandria "because he honored our people, as Hecataeus testifies", but what follows is Hecataeus' statement that Alexander gave Samaria to the Jews "out of respect", and we find nothing about a Jewish migration to Alexandria. Moreover, another passage of Hecataeus quoted by Josephus in C.Ap. 1,194, relates that the Jews went to Egypt "after Alexander's death" (see Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 272, 495, note 8). In all probability, the Jews arrived at ^Alexandria at the beginning of the Ptolemaic period, as is attested by the inscriptions found in the necropolis of El-Ibrahimiya, which date from the beginning of the Ptolemaic period, possibly to the time of Ptolemy I (W. Horbury, D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, Cambridge 1992, nos. 3 - 8 , pp. 3-13). In CPJ II, no. 153, col. IV, 11. 8 3 - 8 4 , too, we read that the Jews had lived in Alexandria "for many years" (8K noXk&v xpovcov). 5 - 6 . It is difficult to define the priecise meaning of the i o n 7CoA.ix£ia mentioned here. Scramuzza understands this phrase as meaning that Augustus confirmed to the Jews "a citizenship equal to that of the Greeks", and notices that this openly contradicts Flaccus' statement, issued in Caligula's days, that the Jews were aliens in Alexandria, concluding that Josephus may be accused of forgery, a possibility also borne out from the fact that Josephus "has been found unreliable on other occasions" ("The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors", p. 291). Dessau and Tcherikover, on the other hand, suggest that some of the Jews living in Alexandria, but clearly not all of them, may have received the right of citizenship from the kings (Dessau, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, p. 673, note 1; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 327-8; idem, CPJ, I, p. 70, note 45; see also S. Applebaum, "The Legal Status" [supra, commentary to 11. 3 - 4 ] , pp. 421^430). It is, however, not certain that the expression i a n 7roA,iTeia mentioned here refers precisely to the right of citizenship in the Greek polis as Reinach believes ("L'empereur Claude", p. 125. See also Dessau, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, pp. 672, 675, where he maintains that Claudius confirmed to the Jews their Alexandrian citizenship). From the Greek sources it emerges that isopoliteia is not an exact equivalent of "right of citizenship" even concerning Greek communities. Since the third century BCE, the right of isopoliteia seems rather to have been an honorific right, which had a potential character only. From the formal point of view, it meant the possible future right of citizenship, but had no practical immediate concrete significance. See V. Ehrenberg, The Greek State, London 1969, pp. 106, 125; W. Gawantka, Isopolitie, Munchen 1975, and M. Humbert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio, Rome 1978, pp. 123-135. Applebaum observes: "Isopoliteia is the privilege of potential
300
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
citizenship in a given city granted by the same city to a citizen or citizens of another. Normally it was part of a reciprocal agreement of sympoliteia between two cities, whereby the citizenship granted to the citizens of the partner became effective in the event of any of them settling in the granting city, and vice versa" ("The Legal Status" [supra, commentary to 11. 3 - 4 ] , p. 436). In the case of the Jews, however, the potential character must have referred to other issues, since the Jews did live in the same cities. Applebaum notes that "as isopoliteia is strictly a reciprocal arrangement between Greek cities, and no such agreements are known between a Greek and a non-Greek body, it is very difficult to acknowledge the possibility of such between the Jewish politeuma and the Greek politeuma of the city. Tarn, on the other hand, argued that the meaning was that the Jews held potential citizenship of the city, which could become valid at such time as any one of them cared to conform with the pagan rites which full membership of the city involved" ("The Legal Status", p. 438). We have, however, no sources in this regard, and the meaning of the expression remains difficult to establish. Bell observes that Claudius "does not say that they were given Alexandrian citizenship, merely that they had '(OTIC; noXixeiaq.... The Jewish community was in fact a TCoAixeia within a city.... Thus there is no real necessity to interpret Josephus' letter as implying citizenship" (Jews and Christians, p. 16). Kasher, too, suggests that the isopoliteia of the Jews was not citizenship in Alexandria but equal political status for their own, independent community (Kasher, The Jews, p. 275; see also L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), New York 1984, pp. 331-338). In fact, the term TcoA-ixeia has many meanings. Applebaum observes: "For Philo, the collective rights enjoyed by the Jewish community constitute a politeia, which appears to possess both an abstract and a concrete significance. Flaccus' attempt to abolish it (In Fl. 53) means the abolition both of Jewish rights and of the organization which exists to apply them. But in Leg. 156, politeia is used for the Roman citizenship of the Jews of Rome" ("The Legal Status", p. 439; see also Kasher, The Jews, pp. 358-364). The ambiguity of this term when used in a Jewish context is stressed by Troiani. "It meant right of citizenship and at the same time active membership in Judaism. Moreover, the Greek isopoliteia may have been used to indicate foreign institutions and different levels of citizenship, as is shown by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who uses the term to designate now civitas sine suffragio now ius Latii" ("The TcoAixeicx of Israel", p. 13). 6-8. Regrettably, the y p a u u m a and the SicxxdyinaTa issued by the Ptolemaic rulers (on the identity of whom see Willrich, "Caligula", p. 404) concerning the Jews did not survive nor are they quoted by Josephus. Dessau suspects that probably the documents brought by the Jews included both genuine and non-genuine documents (Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, p. 673). As for the possible reason why Josephus does not quote them, we may recall that in Ant. XIV, 187-8, Josephus explains why he cites verbatim
28. Ant. XIX,
280-285
301
only Roman documents: "Since many persons, however, out of enmity to us refuse to believe what has been written about us by Persians and Macedonians because these writings are not found everywhere and are not deposited even in public places but are found only among us and some other barbarian peoples, while against the decrees of the Romans nothing can be said, for they are kept in the public places of the cities ... from these same documents I will furnish proof of my statements". The fact that the Jews brought to Rome documents from Ptolemaic times attesting their rights is not surprising. Roman and Greek chancelleries requested proof of uninterrupted possession of rights. The inscriptions which confirm the rights of a community or a temple quote the most ancient acts in their possession as part of a dossier (see E. Bikerman, "Une-question d'authenticite: les privileges juifs", Annuaire de I'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientates et slaves, 13, 1953, Melanges Isidore Levy = Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, Leiden 1980, pp. 29-30). To the Greeks, Claudius writes "it is also my will that all privileges which were granted to you by emperors, kings and prefects before my time shall be confirmed, in the same way that the god Augustus confirmed them" (CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 57-59), where the word "kings" clearly refers to Ptolemaic kings. We also have a letter written by the proconsul Petronius to Ephesus, in which we learn that the gymnasiarchus of Ephesus had shown Petronius "(the documents concerning) the rights which had been given to the 7cpeoPt)xepoi (of the yepouoia) by the emperors and proconsuls", rights which Petronius promptly confirms (D. Knibbe, "Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII", JOAI, 62, 1993, no. 8, 29/30 CE, 11. 8-13 = Ann.Ep. 1993, no. 1468); and Hadrian writes concerning the lands of the temple of Zeus at Aizanoi: fines lovi (G)[eni]tori et civitati Aezanitarum datos [a]b Attalo et Prusias regibus restitu[e]bam (U. Laffi, "I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi", Athenaeum, 49, 1971, pp. 10-11, E l , 11. 2-5). Valerianus, Gallienus and Saloninus, too, confirm the regum antiqua beneficia consuetudine etiam insecuti temporis adprobata ... which had been given in Seleucid time (Laffi, "I terreni del tempio di Zeus", p. 48). 10-11. If the term 8 i K a i a refers here to Jewish traditional rights, it is surely possible that, from time to time, the Roman prefects confirmed them, as it happened in the case of the rights of the Greek Alexandrians (see CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 57-59). That the traditional rights of the diaspora Jews were protected in the Augustan period is borne out also by the documents quoted by Josephus (nos. 22-27). The verb (|)\)?tdxxco is a technical term, used in Roman official documents with the meaning of preserving rights which have previously been given. See for example GC nos. 3, 17/16 (?) BCE, 1. 5; 15, 15 CE, II, 1. 18; 19, 41 CE, col. Ill, 1. 54; 37, 1. 35; 42, 90 CE, 1. 3; 47, 99 CE, 1. 7; 165, 152 CE, col. I, 1. 38, col. II, 1. 39; 166, 161 or 162 CE, 11. 4 7 - 5 2 ; 212 A, 11. 9-10; 218, 198 CE, 11.11-12; 241, 200 CE, 11. 4 - 5 ; 279, 239 CE, 11. 6-8; 282, 11. 4 - 8 ; 284, 250 CE, 11. 11-14.
302
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
13. Aquila may be identified with C. Julius Aquila, prefect of Egypt in 10/11 CE. See O. Stein, "C. Iulius Aquila", RE, I, 19, no. 80, col. 167 and PIR , IV, 1966, no. 165, p. 144. Chronological aspects are dealt with by Ephrat Habas, The Patriarch in the Roman-Byzantine Era: the Making of a Dynasty (Hebr.), Ph.D., Tel Aviv University 1992, pp. 5 8 - 6 1 , 2 0 8 - 2 1 0 (forthcoming in the E.J. Brill, Arheiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums series). 14-16. The ethnarch appears to have been the leading figure of the Jewish community in Alexandria. On his functions, see Stern, GLAJJ, I, pp. 2 8 0 - 2 8 1 . The death of the Jewish ethnarch "at the time when Aquila was at Alexandria" is a historical event mentioned also by Philo, In Fl. 14, who tells us that "our senate had been appointed to take charge of Jewish affairs by our saviour and benefactor Augustus, after the death of the genarch (=ethnarch)". In view of this passage, Hennig maintains that the statement appearing in our edict "is a patent falsification" (Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstucken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', p. 326, note 20), while Tcherikover suggests that the Jewish ethnarch who died under Aquila was actually the last of a line, and after his decease Augustus did not permit another to be elected (Hellenistic Civilization, p. 412). This, however, is not the only possible interpretation. Vermes-Millar observe that "either the individual authority of the ethnarches was superseded by that of a gerousia, or a gerousia was established alongside him. The latter view gains support from the fact that the edict of Claudius seems to presuppose the persistence of the ethnarch even after the intervention of Augustus; but it is admittedly also possible that Claudius only means to state in general that the Jews continued to have their own communal officials" (Schurer, The History, III, 1, p. 93). As for Augustus' role in Jewish internal matters, no necessary contradiction is involved here between our edict and In Fl. 74. That the Jewish ethnarch who died was not replaced may not have been due to Augustus' intervention but because he was the last of a dynasty. Schwartz suggests that no contradiction appears here "if we construe the words of the edict to mean that it was not Augustus who suspended the office of the Jewish ethnarch, leaving unsaid the fact the office nevertheless disappeared (due to the end of a dynasty or some other reason)" (Schwartz, Agrippa I, p. 104. In note 54 on the same page, Schwartz cites Stern's view that the position was passed along within a family, and that the office disappeared when its last holder died without heir: Stern, GLAJJ, I, p. 281). 2
16-18. Claudius' statement that Augustus wanted "that the several subject peoples should abide by their own customs and not be compelled to violate the religion of their fathers" is probably, according to Rajak, "a Jewish elaboration on a less ambitious original" ("Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 115). In any case, we have a number of inscriptions and papyri which attest that Augustus recognized the rights of a number of subject populations: the Samians (GC no. 20, 41 CE, 11. 11-13), the Thasians (GC no. 23,11. 7 - 9 ) , and
28. Ant. XIX,
280-285
303
the Dionysiac Artists (GC no. 24 A, 11. 7-8). See F. Millar, "The Emperor, the Senate and the Provices", JRS, 56, 1966, pp. 162-3. 18-19. 'AA,8^av8pei(; 5e ejcapOfjvai. In CPJ II, no. 153, the unrest which took place in Caligula's days is called "the disturbances and rioting, or rather, to speak the truth, the war against the Jews" (col. IV, 11. 73-74). On the Greek attack against the Jews in Alexandria in Caligula's days we have the detailed testimony of Philo, In FL and Leg. See also Tcherikover, CPJ, I, pp. 68-69; Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden 1970; eadem, The Jews, pp. 235-242. 2 0 - 2 1 . 8id xf]v noXkhy cxTcovoia K a i 7tapa(|>pocri>vT|v. On this expression, along with that concerning xr|v ra'i'ov 7capa(|>pocn3vr|v which appears below, on 11. 2 4 - 2 5 , see below, pp. 324-326. 2 4 - 2 7 . This is the main section of the document, which announces the decision reached by Claudius, that is, the confirmation of traditional Jewish rights. The same confirmation also appears in Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians preserved in the papyrus letter: "(I conjure the Alexandrians) to allow them to keep their own ways, as they did in the time of the divine Augustus and as I too, having heard both sides, have confirmed" (CPJ II, no. 153, col. V, 11. 86-88). fJoMouai is the technical verb used to indicate the decisions of Roman magistrates in republican times, and of emperors later. This verb appears in Augustus' letter to the Samians (GC no. 1, 1. 7), in a proclamation of Germanicus at Alexandria (GC no. 16, 11. 8-9, and probably also on 11. 19-20), in Claudius' letter to the Greeks of Alexandria (CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 1. 57; col. IV, 1. 61), in Trajan's epistles to the Delphians (GC no. 45, 1. 10) and to the Smyrneans (GC no. 48, 1. 2) and in a letter written by Hadrian (GC no. 121, 1. 23). 2 7 - 3 0 . Bell observes that this final provision "is very unlikely to proceed from a Jewish forger" (Jews and Christians, p. 15), and Tcherikover, too, in spite of his critical attitude toward the document as a whole, observes that "the mention of both sides connects this passage of the edict with the similar passage in Claudius' rescript, which is an important proof in favor of the genuineness of the edict" (Hellenistic Civilization, p. 415). We should notice that this phrase closely echoes Claudius' attitude as preserved in the papyrus letter, where we read: "I merely say that, unless you stop this destructive and obstinate mutual enmity, I shall be forced to show what a benevolent ruler can be when he is turned to righteous indignation.... I conjure the Alexandrians... The Jews, on the other hand, I order... If you both give up your present ways and are willing to live in gentleness and kindness with one another, I for my part will care for the city..." (CPJ II, no. 153, col. IV, 11. 79-84; col. V, 11. 85-104). 30. The form of publication, whether in perishable or durable form, is not mentioned, but the former seems more probable. It appears that emperors continued the republican habit of having their edicts written on a white-painted
304
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
wooden board {album) with headings written in red. Only rarely were edicts inscribed in bronze or marble, and this always happened by initiative of the recipients. Obviously, they had the imperial pronouncements inscribed if and only if they were of direct interest and advantage to themselves. There is a striking contrast between the rare cases of inscribed general edicts and the scores of surviving inscriptions of imperial letters addressed to cities. This explanation is supported by the fact that those edicts which are found on inscriptions are predominantly those which are not general, but arise from and relate to the affairs of particular communities. See F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337), London 1997, pp. 254-256. If the Jews of Alexandria had this edict inscribed on bronze (a hypothesis which can not be verified), we may wonder whether this may have been the edict to which Josephus refers, erroneously attributing it to Julius Caesar, when he speaks of a bronze tablet concerning the rights of the Jews in Alexandria (Ant. XIV, 188). The edict starts with the names of the emperor, followed by his titles and by the verb \eyei. It is the common opening of imperial edicts. Then the historical background appears, introduced by eniyvovc,, "having known". Similarly, the historical background of edicts is introduced by dvayvotx; in a letter of Caligula to the league of the Achaeans, Beotians etc. (GC no. 18,1. 23, 37 CE) and in a letter of Claudius to the Hymnodoi (GC no. 21, 1. 20); "whereas I have learned that..." also appears in an edict in which Hadrian grants a moratorium on taxes in Egypt (GC no. 88 A, 136 CE, 11. 5-6: 7U)06LI£VO<;). Similar expressions appear also in edicts issued by proconsuls. See for example that issued by C. Popillius Cams Pedo at Ephesos in 162/3 or 163/4 CE (Die Inschriften von Ephesos, ed. H. Wankel, IGSK, I a, Bonn 1979, no. 24), where we find on 1. 3: "having learnt (jiaGcov) from the decree sent to me by the council of the city of Ephesos that...". Edicts always open with a historical background. The main section of the edict, that which contains the decision proper of Claudius, starts on 1. 24 and is introduced by the verb pouTioucu, which is always used to introduce the decisions of Roman magistrates during the republican era and those of the emperors later (see above, commentary to 11. 24-27). At the end, we find a provision against possible further disorders, which, too, finds parallels in other imperial edicts (see commentary to 11. 27-30). The form is the usual one of imperial edicts as they are preserved in extant inscriptions and papyri. As for the content, Claudius confirms the traditional rights of the Alexandrian Jews, that is, the right to live according to their own customs (where Claudius' use of the term "customs" and not "laws" may not be 1
1
See above, pp. 1 9 - 2 0 .
28. Ant. XIX,
305
280-285
2
accidental). This decision does not constitute an innovation in the traditional Roman policy toward the Jews. It rather constitutes a return to the Augustan policy after Caligula's reign. And we may recall that Augustus himself had confirmed the grants accorded to the Jews by Julius Caesar. Levick suggests that Julius Caesar was Claudius' model in many ways: "One may be justified in regarding Claudius' principate as a resumption of Caesar's regime and in claiming that Claudius himself saw it in that light". As in the case of Augustus, in that of Claudius, too, it appears that his policy toward the Jews is not different from that implemented concerning other provincial populations. The rights previously given by Augustus were confirmed by Claudius, in the years 4 1 - 4 3 , also to the Samians: "all [the privileges] which [your] ancestors [received] and which you [enjoy] up to [now, I] confirm [for you]" (GC no. 20, 41 CE, 11. 11-13) and to the Thasians: "I preserve for you according to the [decisions] of [the deified] Augustus all the rights you received from him in reference to what you previously had and especially to the export of grain" (GC no. 23, 42 CE, 11. 7-9). To the Dionysiac Artists, too, Claudius wrote twice. In the first letter, written in 43 CE, we read: "As for the rights and privileges which have been granted to you by the deified Augustus, I maintain them" (GC no. 24 A, 43 CE, 11. 7-8). Five years later, in 48 CE, Claudius writes again: "That you recall what I did for you in preserving the rights granted by the Augusti who preceded me and by the senate I commend you..." (GC no. 29, 48 CE, 11. 5-9). 3
4
5
Both formal features and content point in the direction of authenticity. The reason why the authenticity of this text has often been challenged in modern scholarship lies in the first part of the edict, which has been regarded as a forgery by many modern scholars on two main grounds. The first is its supposed relationship to the so-called papyrus letter (CPJ II, no. 153), which was also written at the beginning of Claudius' reign, and which also mentions Claudius' confirmation of Jewish traditional rights. Since both the edict quoted by Josephus and the papyrus letter contain the same basic information (11. 2 4 - 2 7 in our document; col. IV, 11. 82-84; col. V, 11. 85-88 in the papyrus letter), it appears that these texts reflect one single edict issued by Claudius. Details, however, and important ones, differ: in Josephus' edict the Jews are spoken of as "the Jews in Alexandria called Alexandrians" (11.
2
S e e below, pp. 4 1 6 - 4 1 7 . See Willrich, "Caligula", p. 4 0 5 . Barbara Levick, "Antiquarian or Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar's Conception of his Principate", AJPh, 9 9 , 1978, pp. 9 6 - 1 0 5 . This is also the v i e w expressed by Bell, Jews and Christians, p. 15, note 3; Engers, "Der Brief des Kaisers Claudius", p. 173; Momigliano, "Un n u o v o frammento", p. 795; Premerstein, "Das Datum des Prozesses des Isidores", p. 183; Tcherikover, CPJ, I, pp. 6 8 - 6 9 ; Kasher, "The Circumstances of Claudius Caesar's Edict", pp. 1-7; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 246; Kasher, The Jews, pp. 2 6 2 - 2 7 4 ; Oliver, GC, p. 577; Levick, Claudius, p. 183. 3
4
5
306
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
3-4), and we learn that "they received 'ion 7coX,iT£ia from the kings", while in the papyrus they are said to live in a city "which is not their own" (col. V, 1. 95). Moreover, the text quoted by Josephus says that "the Jews in Alexandria called Alexandrians were fellow colonizers from the very earliest times jointly with the Alexandrians", while the papyrus letter reads: "the Jews who have inhabited the same city for many years" (CPJ II, 153, col. IV, 11. 83-84). Hennig concludes: "there is no doubt that the edict quoted by Josephus includes massive falsifications. One of them appears in the way Claudius says that the Jews had lived for a long time in Alexandria, as against the way in which he expresses this idea in the papyrus letter". The general tone of Claudius toward the Jews, too, is rather different: favorable toward the Jews in Josephus' text, much harder in the papyrus letter. In both documents Claudius warns Greeks and Jews to restore peace, but in Josephus' edict the exhortation is mild: "I enjoin upon both parties to take the greatest precaution to prevent any disturbance rising after the posting of my edict". In the papyrus, on the other hand, it finds a much stronger formulation: "With regard to the responsibility for the disturbances and rioting.... I harbour within me a store of immutable indignation against those who renewed the conflict. I merely say that, unless you stop this destructive and obstinate mutual enmity, I shall be forced to show what a benevolent ruler can be when he is turned to righteous indignation" (col. IV, 11. 77-82). 6
If the two texts reflect one and the same edict issued by Claudius, since the authenticity of the edict preserved in the papyrus is obviously not questionable, it follows that then all the details which appear in the text quoted by Josephus, which contradict those preserved in the papyrus, must have been added either by Josephus or by his source. Josephus' (or his source's) apologetic purposes would also be responsible for the general attitude of Claudius, which is much more favorable to the Jews in the text quoted by Josephus than in that preserved by the papyrus. The conclusion often reached in modern scholarship is that the text quoted by Josephus is a Jewish forgery (Hennig maintains that "Josephus' edict is nothing other than an excerpt from Claudius' letter, inflated and including falsifications"), or, more charitably, a Jewish "edition" of Claudius' edict. 7
8
6
7
"Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', p. 328. Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', pp. 3 3 0 ,
335. 8
This is the v i e w maintained by Zielinski, "L'empereur Claude", pp. 1 3 1 - 2 ; Scramuzza, "The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors", p. 2 9 1 ; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 4 0 9 - 4 1 5 ; Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, pp. 1 2 0 - 1 , note 4; Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 115, note 29; eadem, "Jewish Rights", p. 29; Schwartz, Agrippa I, p. 100; Wander, Trennungsprozesse, p. 2 2 1 ; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 2 6 3 , note 12; Botermann, Das Judenedikt, pp. 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 ; Honigman, "Philon, Flavius Josephe, et la citoyennete alexaridrine", p. 6 7 , note 17; Schafer, Judeophobia, p. 149.
28. Ant. XIX,
307
280-285
Scholars are also found, however, who do not view the two texts as identical and who defend the authenticity of Josephus' edict. The first question is whether such an identification between the edict quoted by Josephus and the papyrus letter is borne out by the evidence of the two texts. The papyrus letter is long — 108 lines (as against the 30 lines of Josephus' text). At the beginning, we find the provisions about its publication, the names of the twelve Greek ambassadors, details about a previous honorary decree passed by the Alexandrians, and then Claudius' decision concerning different issues. Among them are the keeping of his birthday as a sacred day, the erection of statues of Claudius, the setting up of four-horse chariots and the refusal of a high-priest and temples in his honor; provisions for the registration of the ephebes, the creation of a Claudian tribe and the dedication of groves after the Egyptian custom. Claudius declines the establishment of a high-priest and temples to himself, replies to the requests made by the Alexandrians regarding the Alexandrian citizenship and the election of the neokoroi of the temple of Augustus, and confirms all the privileges previously given to the Alexandrian Greeks by emperors, kings and prefects. Claudius also reduces the tenure of municipal office, and deals with the possibility of restoring the Greek council. All these details are not found in the edict quoted by Josephus. 9
This is surely not conclusive, since Josephus (or his source) might have considerably abbreviated the text, preserving only those details directly pertaining to the Jews. But if the two texts reflect one and the same document, we find it strange that Josephus (or his source) omitted that section in which Claudius addresses the Greeks, inviting them "to behave gently and kindly towards the Jews ... and not to dishonour any of their customs in their worship of their god, but to allow them to keep their own ways" (col. IV, 11. 82-84; col. V, 85-87). These words would unquestionably have served Jewish apologetic purposes very well, and it is difficult to understand why they were not reproduced if Josephus' edict was a "Jewish revision" of the papyrus. As for Claudius' decision concerning the Jewish traditional rights, it is true that it is preserved in both texts, but its formulation is quite different. In Josephus' edict, there is no addressee. Claudius states in a general way: "I desire that none of their rights should be lost to the Jews ... but that their former rights also be preserved to them, while they abide by their own 9
See Bell, Jews and Christians, p. 15, note 3; D e Sanctis, "Claudio e i giudei", p. 4 9 0 = pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 ; Engers, "Der Brief des Kaisers Claudius", p. 173; Momigliano, "Un nuovo frammento", p. 7 9 5 ; Premerstein, "Das Datum des Prozesses des Isidores", p. 183; Kasher, "The Circumstances of Claudius Caesar's Edict", pp. 1-7; S m a l l w o o d , The Jews, p. 246; Kasher, "Les Circonstances", pp. 9 9 - 1 0 8 ; idem, The Jews, pp. 2 6 2 - 2 7 4 , Oliver, GC, p. 577; Levick, Claudius, p. 183.
308
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
customs" (11. 24-27). In the papyrus, on the other hand, Claudius' permission is quoted indirectly, in that part of the letter addressed to the Greeks: "I conjure the Alexandrians ... to allow them (the Jews) to keep their own ways, as they did in the time of the god Augustus and as I too, having heard both sides, have confirmed" (col. IV, 11. 8 2 - 8 4 , col. V, 11. 85-88). There is also a difference in the tenses. In the text quoted by Josephus, Claudius' decision is expressed in the present tense, fk)t>A,OLiai, while in the papyrus the verb is used in the past tense, ePePaicoca. One possible conclusion is that "Claudius now confirms in writing what he previously confirmed orally, namely, when the two delegations had been heard". Tcherikover, however, points out that the verb PePaioco, used by an emperor, refers to an official act, namely, the publishing of an edict. A glance into the sources shows that he is correct. The verb PePaioco means an official confirmation apparently in written form since we never find mention of an oral confirmation of rights and privileges in extant inscriptions and papyri. It is used both in the present and in the past tense, according to its meaning in the context. There is, it is true, a case in which it is difficult to establish the exact meaning (GC no. 107, 1. 17), but most of the time it is absolutely clear whether reference is made to the present or to the past. We find the present tense in Trajan's letter to the Delphians, where we read: "[Your city's freedom] and autonomy, which the emperors before me [have granted and preserved up to now], I too guarantee (PePaico)" (GC, no. 44, 98 CE, 11. 3-4), and in the edict of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to the Coroneans confirming freedom and autonomy: "All the rights... which were granted to you previously by our ancestors ... we too confirm (Kai rjueit; PePaiouuev)" (GC no. 117, 11. 8-10). The present is also found in the letter of Septimius Severus and Caracalla to the Delphians: "we guarantee the gifts that... have been preserved up to our time" (rcdvxa xd riuGiKd 5iKaia [r|ue:i<; PePaioi5|ie]v) (GC no. 215, 11. 24-25). When the past tense appears, it clearly refers to an event which took place in the past. Claudius writes to the Greeks of Alexandria: "It is also my will that all privileges which were granted to you by emperors, kings and prefects before my time shall be confirmed, in the same way that the god Augustus confirmed them (cbq Kai [6] Qeoq XefiacToq epePaicooe)" (CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 57-59); and in Hadrian's letter to the Aphrodisians we read: "Your freedom and autonomy as well as the other rights recognized in your case by the senate and the emperors who preceded me I confirmed previously (ePePaicooa rcpocGev)" (GC no. 69, 119 CE, 11. 5-7). Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, too, write to the Delphians: "whatever [the divus] our father guaranteed [for you ... (6 x[i ye 6 0eo]<; rcaxfip fijicov ePePaicoaev [uulv) (GC no. 177,1. 14). 10
11
1 0
Zielinski, "L'empereur Claude", p. 130; Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstilcken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', pp. 3 2 9 - 3 3 0 ; Schwartz, Agrippa I, p. 101, note 4 3 . CP J, I, p. 7 1 , note 4 6 . 11
28. Ant. XIX,
309
280-285
From these examples it appears that the most plausible meaning of Claudius' statement in CPJ no. 153, col. V, 1. 88: "I conjure the Alexandrians ... to allow them (the Jews) to keep their own ways, as they did in the time of the god Augustus and as I, too... e(3e(5aicoaa)" is the literal one, namely, that an official confirmation of the Jewish traditional rights had already taken place in the past. A further indication that Claudius is referring to something which has taken place in the past appears in 1. 82 in col. IV of the papyrus letter, where Claudius introduces his call for peace addressed to Greeks and Jews by the words "even now", exi Kai vuv. Since 1924, the previous confirmation mentioned in the papyrus (col. V, 1. 88) has been identified with the edict quoted by Josephus. Bell observes that the words in'11. 87-88 of the papyrus letter "make it certain that Claudius had already issued a decreee confirming the privileges of the Jews. The letter in Josephus, if genuine, must be the one referred t o " , and the same view is shared by Lucia Levi: "Queste ultime parole (di Claudio) ci attestano incontrovertibilmente che esiste una deliberazione anteriore di Claudio, relativa ai Giudei di Alessandria, che l'lmperatore conferma e sulla quale non vuole discutere; tale deliberazione non puo essere che il rescritto riferito da Giuseppe Flavio...". Momigliano, too, writes about the edict of Claudius quoted by Josephus that "it is already impossible to suspect that Josephus' edict is false, since it is quoted in Claudius' letter to the Alexandrians", while Jones stresses that the two confirmations reflect two distinct facts. The same view is shared by Tcherikover in his commentary to the papyrus letter, by Smallwood, by Kasher and by Watson. 12
13
14
15
The impression that the two texts can not be identified as two versions of one and the same edict becomes stronger if we examine the formal features of the two documents. The papyrus has the form of a letter. At the beginning, we find the salutation: "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus the Emperor, pontifex maximus, holder of the tribunician power, consul designate, to the city of Alexandria, greeting" (col. II, 11. 14-16). Letters were often sent by emperors to provincials. The correspondence was never initiated by the 1 2
Jews and Christians, p. 15. "La lettera di Claudio e gli ebrei di Alessandria", RMI, 5, 1930, p. 3 8 4 . "Un nuovo frammento", p. 7 9 5 . See also D e Sanctis, "Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria", p. 4 9 0 = pp. 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 . Jones, "Claudius and the Jewish Question", p. 25; Tcherikover, CPJ, II, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 ; Smallwood, The Jews, p. 2 4 6 , note 101; Kasher, The Jews, pp. 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 , note 16 (where he cites I.D. Amusin, "The Letter and Edict of Claudius Caesar", VDI, 2, 1949, p. 222) and P. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. A Sociological Approach, Cambridge 1986, p. 9 2 . In contrast, Hennig maintains that "there was no edict issued before the papyrus letter, because otherwise such a detailed discussion would have been superfluous, and w e would expect a hint in s o m e other place" (Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', p. 329). 1 3
1 4
1 5
310
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
emperor. In the ordinary course of affairs, a city might pass a decree to express loyalty by means of special honors and send ambassadors to show the decree to the emperor and to gain his approval. Sometimes the decree could set forth the difficulties of its position and appoint an embassy to plead with the emperor for relief. In either case the emperor replied to the city or corporation with an epistle in which he usually mentioned both the decree and the faithful service of the ambassadors. Imperial letters normally ended with a farewell formula, epptooGe, eppcooGai i)ua<; PcuXoum, or eirruxeixe. This is the pattern which we find in our papyrus. It mentions the honorary decree passed by Alexandria in honor of Claudius and requests of various kinds on the part of the Alexandrians, along with Claudius' decisions. At the end, we find the farewell formula, eppcooGai (col. V, 1. 108). 16
The text quoted by Josephus, on the other hand, has the form of an edict proper. The titles of the emperor are followed by A,eyei, which is the usual technical verb found in edicts after the titles of the emperor. There is no addressee. After the mention of the background, which explains the reasons of the edict, introduced by the participle eniyvovc,, we find the verb Pot>A,o|iat, which introduces Claudius' decision. There is no farewell formula. The document quoted by Josephus has the usual form of edicts proper. Moreover, the technical name of edicts, Siaxdyiia, is explicitly mentioned on 1. 30. Such basic differences between the papyrus and Josephus' text are extremely difficult to explain if we assume that they reflect one and the same document. To change the form of an epistle into that of an edict presupposes an exceptional knowledge of the imperial styles of correspondence, and would be a rather difficult task. But the main point is that there is no reason which may explain why someone could have wanted to make such a change. Emperors' decisions could be expressed in either way, in epistles or edicts. From the legal point of view, there was no difference whatsoever. Epistles and edicts were legally binding in the same w a y . To change Claudius' epistle into an edict would have made no sense. It therefore appears doubtful that the text quoted by Josephus should be identified as a Jewish version of the papyrus letter. In this case, we cannot rule out the possibility that there were two pronouncements issued by Claudius concerning Jewish rights published at Alexandria (which seems also suggested by Petronius' letter to the leaders of Dora, where he states: "And, that you may be better informed of his Imperial Majesty's policy concerning the whole matter, I have appended his edicts [Siaxdyuma] which were published at 17
18
1 6
Papyri, 1 7
1 8
J.H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors Philadelphia 1989, pp. 1-18. S e e commentary to 1. 2 and above, p. 19. See Millar, The Emperor, p. 2 5 2 and Oliver, GC, p. 19.
from
Inscriptions
and
28. Ant. XIX,
280-285
311
Alexandria": document no. 30,11. 35-38). The two pronouncements may have been made necessary by the events which transpired at Alexandria in 41 CE. The first edict would be that sent to the Alexandrian Jews in the spring of 41 CE, and it is represented by the text quoted in document no. 28. Without an official imperial pronouncement, the Jewish cult was practically illegal in Alexandria as it was in Caligula's d a y s . It may have been the Jewish king Agrippa I, a personal friend of Claudius, who used his influence to speed the discussions. What happened in Caligula's days was a departure from the Augustan policy. Claudius decided to restore traditional Jewish rights, in a pronouncement issued in the form of an edict proper. The edict officially legalized the traditional rights enjoyed by the Jews which had been abolished in Caligula's time. Probably shortly afterwards, upon Agrippa's request traditional Jewish rights were also confirmed "to the rest of the world" by means of a second edict, the one quoted by Josephus in document no. 29. 19
20
The edict sent to the Jews of Alexandria, however, did not achieve its purpose. Claudius confirmed the legitimacy of the Jewish cult refraining at the same time from dealing with the specific issues of the Jewish-Greek conflict. Mutual recriminations between Jews and Greeks were apparently not yet settled. New disorders broke out. Jews from Syria and from the Egyptian Xcopa were also apparently somehow involved in the events, as we infer from CPJ II, no. 153, col. V, 11. 96-100. The military intervention of the prefect was necessary to restore peace. These events are referred to by Josephus in his introduction to the present document, where he writes that "upon the death of Gaius, the Jews... took heart again and at once armed themselves (Ant. XIX, 2 7 8 ) . Alexandrian events once more required Claudius' attention. Claudius had also not yet thanked the Alexandrian Greeks for the decree passed in his honor after his accession to the throne, and owed them an answer to their requests concerning civic and religious matters. According to this reconstruction, the letter to the Alexandrians, published in November and possibly written in October, would represents Claudius' response and at the same time his reaction to the renewal of the conflict, to which he refers in the harshest terms: "I harbour within me a store of immutable indignation against those who renewed the conflict. I merely say that, unless you stop this destructive and obstinate mutual enmity, I shall be forced to show what a benevolent ruler can be when he is turned to righteous indignation" (col. IV, 11. 79-82). Again, Claudius refrains from entering into the details of the 21
1 9
See Rabello, "Inobservance des fetes juives dans l'Empire romain", ANRW, II, 2 1 , 2, 1984, p. 1293, note 13. On Agrippa's role in R o m e , see Schwartz, Agrippa I, pp. 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 . According to Kasher (The Jews, pp. 2 7 1 - 2 7 4 ) , this happened between March and October of 4 1 . 2 0
2 1
312
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
conflict, and limits himself to ordering peace, this time in strong terms. The Greeks are required "to behave gently and kindly towards the Jews ... and not to dishonour any of their customs in their worship of their god" (col. IV, 83-88). And the Jews are warned "not to aim at more than they have previously had... nor are they to bring in or invite Jews coming from Syria or Egypt, or I shall be forced to conceive graver suspicions. If they disobey, I shall proceed against them in every way as fomenting a common plague for the whole world" (col. V, 11. 96-99). At the same time, he refuses the erection of a statue of Pax Augusta Claudiana at Alexandria, while he allows its erection in Rome (CPJ II, 153, col. II, 11. 35-37). Why was the statue when dedicated at Alexandria (J)OpTiKOT£[po]<; but unobjectionable at Rome? Rostovtzeff links the request of the Alexandrians with the disturbances which had taken place at Alexandria at the beginning of Claudius' reign, which had been repressed by Roman arms. "In order to put the blame for the revolt entirely on the Jews", Rostovtzeff observes, "and in order to celebrate 'their' victory, the Alexandrians suggested through Balbillus that a statue of Nemesis-Pax should be dedicated to commemorate the re-establishment of peace and the crushing of rebels. Claudius, however, was well aware that such an act might originate new riots at Alexandria, and therefore calls the statue at Alexandria (J)opTiKOT£[po]<;. At Rome such a statue was indeed inoffensive, and at the same time it was a good symbol for the program of the new reign". 22
If the Jewish uprising in 41 mentioned in Ant. XIX, 278-279, occurred after Claudius issued the edict quoted by Josephus and before the letter sent in the autumn to the Alexandrians, then we would understand the reason for the change in the tone of Claudius toward the Jews, rather favorable in the first one and much more harsh in the papyrus letter. In this case, we would not have to consider this change in tone a sign of inconsistency on the part of Claudius, or an indication that Claudius' opinon, or at least his attitude, changed during his first year, and that Agrippa's and Herod's influence waned (after they returned to Palestine?), or alternatively as a proof that Josephus' edict is a forgery. If this reconstruction is correct, we would have three documents. The first (document no. 28) deals with Alexandrian Jews; the second (document no. 29) concerns the Jews in general and was sent "to the rest of the world". The third (CPJ, II, no. 153) is a letter sent in October of the same year to 23
24
25
2 2
M. Rostovtzeff, "Pax Augusta Claudiana", JEA, 12, 1926, pp. 2 4 - 2 9 . See Engers, "Der B r i e f , p. 176; Laqueur, "Der Brief des Kaisers Claudius an die Alexandriner", Klio, 2 0 , 1926, p. 103. S e e the works cited by Schwartz, Agrippa I, p. 100, note 4 1 . Hennig maintains that "it is unthinkable that Claudius had issued contradictory decisions within a few months" ("Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstucken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', p. 3 2 6 , note 20). 2 3
2 4
2 5
28. Ant. XIX,
313
280-285
Alexandrian Greeks in reply to their requests and among other matters also deals with the Jewish question. Scholars find it difficult to believe that there were two separate edicts written within such a short time of each other, but instances are preserved by inscriptions, in which the same emperor wrote to the same addressee twice in the same year. This is so in the case of Hadrian, who wrote two letters to the Astypaleans in 118 CE (GC nos. 64, 65). In the case of Claudius, in particular, we know that he issued a large number of edicts. Huzar observes: "Suetonius (Claud. 16.4) reports that in one day he issued twenty edicts, instructing his people on such unexpected topics as the pitching of wine jars and the best cure for snake b i t e s . H e criticized the unruly behavior of theater-goers who insulted women or even consular officials.... He even issued a self-conscious edict apologizing for his hot temper, which he promised would be short-lived, and for his resentment, which would always be justifiable (Suet. Claud. 38.1: ira vs. iracundia, a pedant's differentiation). And Suetonius (Claud. 32) claims that he considered an edict permitting belching in polite society as an aid to health". The survival of inscriptions and papyri is surely accidental, but it is a fact that in Oliver's collection we find fourteen edicts issued by Claudius, against ten issued by Augustus, three by Tiberius, one by Caligula, and five by N e r o . 26
27
28
Different pronouncements issued by Claudius on the same subject would not surprise us also in view of the fact that the three documents concerning Jewish matters had different recipients: the Alexandrian Jews, the Jews living "in the rest of the world", and the Greeks of Alexandria. The reason why the reconstruction of these events has been so controversial in contemporary research seems to lie in Josephus' introduction to Claudius' edict, which is misleading. Josephus states that the renewed disorders which took place at Alexandria, in which the Jews had an active part, were the reason why Claudius issued his edict. Josephus also seems to imply the participation of Syrian Jews in these events, since he writes that Claudius' edict was sent to Alexandria and to Syria. But the involvement of Syrian Jews is somehow referred to not in the edict he quotes immediately afterwards but in CPJ II, 153, where we read: "Nor are they [the Jews] to bring in or invite Jews coming from Syria or Egypt, or I shall be forced to conceive graver suspicions" (col. V, 11. 96-98). As Schwartz notes, "this [Josephus'] introduction would fit the papyrus letter, which considers the Jews the troublemakers, much better than 2 6
Scramuzza, "The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors", p. 2 9 1 ; Musurillo, The Acts, pp. 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 , note 4. "Claudius", p. 6 3 5 . Augustus: GC no. 1 , 4 - 1 2 ; Tiberius: GC nos. 1 3 , 1 4 , 15; Caligula: GC no. 18; Claudius: GC nos. 1 9 - 3 1 ; Nero: GC nos. 3 3 - 3 6 , 2 9 6 . S e e also E. Volterra, "Senatus Consulta", in: Novissimo Digesto Italiano, X V I , 1969, pp. 1 0 6 6 - 1 0 6 9 . 2 7
2 8
314
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
29
it fits Josephus' edict". Immediately after this introduction, Josephus quotes the wrong edict, namely, the first one issued by Claudius and not that in the form of a letter which was issued after the renewed riots. It is only because CPJ II, no. 153 luckily survived that we have the possibility of grasping something of what must have happened. We may now ask ourselves from where Josephus may have got the details which he gives us in his introduction. The details about the unrest promoted by the Jews and about Syrian Jews make us wonder whether Josephus read both the edict which he quotes and that preserved in the papyrus letter. In this case, obvious apologetic reasons might have brought him to choose to quote that more favorable to the Jews. In this case, however, it is strange that in his introduction to it Josephus mentions the fact that the Jews "armed themselves" and that "Claudius commanded the prefect of Egypt to put down the unrest" (Ant. XIX, 278-279), which show that the Alexandrian Jews were not the innocent victims of their Greek neighbors as it emerges from document no. 28. We may also observe that the details concerning Claudius' order to the local prefect "to put down the unrest" (Ant. XIX, 279) does not appear in the papyrus letter. It is therefore clear that Josephus did not take it from there. The only possibility one can think of is that he had an additional source well acquainted with Jewish Alexandrian matters, which also dealt with the involvement of the Syrian Jews. Of such a source, however, we know nothing except the fact that it must have existed. If, however, this source had also quoted the papyrus letter (which is doubtful: verbatim quotations were extremely rare), and if Josephus decided not to quote it, we would reasonably expect him to pass over in silence also the Jewish unrest and its repression by the local prefect ordered by Claudius. Nothing obliged Josephus to mention these facts. In fact, had he not told us that "the Jews ... took heart again and at once armed themselves" (Ant. XIX, 278), we would know nothing about it, since we have no other source dealing with this episode, and the testimony of the papyrus is rather indirect in this regard. The fact that Josephus does mention the disorders in which the Jews, too, had an active part, and then quotes the wrong edict, rather suggests that Josephus operated here bona fide, and that he was not aware that there was a discrepancy between his introduction and the edict quoted afterwards. Josephus may be mistaken also in considering the edict he quotes as a result of "the petition of Kings Agrippa and Herod" (Ant. XIX, 279), since the intervention of Agrippa and Herod is mentioned not in the edict concerning Alexandrian Jews but in 30
31
2 9
Agrippa I, p. 102. The local prefect was not C. Vitrasius Pollio, as suggested by Feldman, Loeb ed., IX, p. 3 4 4 , note a, but his successor L. Aemilius Rectus, w h o is found in office soon after the assassination of Caligula in 4 1 , January 24. See PIR ,1, no. 3 9 5 , p. 67. 31 S e e b e l o w , pp. 3 7 2 - 3 7 3 . 3 0
2
28. Ant. XIX,
315
280-285
that sent "to the rest of the world" (document no. 29,11. 3-7). In this last case, however, this is not certain, since most probably Agrippa and Herod asked for Claudius' intervention on behalf of the Jews from the very beginning, immediately after Claudius was made emperor. Possibly, this, too, appeared in the anonymous source consulted by Josephus. In conclusion, it seems possible that Josephus combined here together the edict which he had and an independent Alexandrian Jewish source which did not survive, which dealt with the historical developments which had taken place in the year 41. He put the information and the edict together, one after the other, without realizing that something did not fit; which points to lack of attention on Josephus' part, but probably not to an intentional mistake. The same kind of inconsistencies also appear in Josephus' introduction to Caesar's decrees and in that to Augustus' e d i c t s . The other main reason which leads scholars to doubt the authenticity of the edict quoted by Josephus is the fact that the first part of the document, introduced by the participle eniyvovq, contains a series of ambiguous and non-technical statements which arouse scholars' skepticism — and rightfully so. Claudius says that the Jews are called "Alexandrians", while extant sources make it clear that the Jews living in Alexandria did not have, as a whole, the legal right to be called Alexandrians (see commentary to 11. 3-4). Of course, one may conclude that these lines were written by a Jewish hand, responsible for all the document, or for some sections of it. We should, however, recall that in Ptolemaic times legal situations were legally much less rigidly defined than in the Roman period, and some of the Jews may have been in the habit of calling themselves "Alexandrians". This may well have happened also in Roman times. In fact, it actually did. From the cancelled second line of CPJ II, no. 151, we learn that the Jews called themselves "Alexandrians" also in Roman times, according to a common use independent of theoretical legal rights. Alongside the legal meaning, there was apparently a more general, popular sense attributed to the term. Josephus claims: "Our Jewish residents in Antioch are called Antiochenes.... Similarly, those at Ephesus and throughout the rest of Ionia bear the same name as the indigenous citizens..." (C.Ap. II, 39). Josephus may be suspected of ignoring or of pretending to ignore the legal correct meaning of these terms, but his testimony is not an isolated one. The Acts of the Apostles, too, mention one of the "Alexandrians Jews", named Apollus (18:24), and Philo consistently refers to the Jews of the city as Alexandrians. Applebaum observes that it is very difficult to know whether he is using the term Alexandrians in anything more than a broad geographical sense". Troiani, too, stresses that "from the testimony of 32
33
32 See above, pp. 3 0 - 3 1 , 2 3 4 - 2 3 5 . 3 3
"The Legal Status" [supra, commentary to 11. 3 - 4 ] , p. 4 3 9 .
316
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
the Jewish-Hellenistic authors we learn that 'Antiochians', 'Alexandrians', 'Ephesians', 'Sardians', was the ordinary title of the Jews in the cities where they lived". Moreover, as Bell stresses, Claudius does not say here that the Jews were Alexandrians, but that they "are called" Alexandrians: "why 'called' if they were Alexandrians in the technical s e n s e ? . Huzar observes that "it is possible that Josephus ... 'adjusted' Claudius' term 'Alexandrians' to give the Jews the much coveted citizenship rights. Equally possible, and indeed more probable, would be Claudius' own shift of terms. Claudius was increasingly conscious of the many special problems involving the Jews. He may well have used a general meaning of citizenship in the edicts without intending the Greek citizenship status, while more carefully substituting an exacter term in his formal letter a few months later". As for the fact that the Jews were fellow colonizers alongside the Greeks "from the very earliest times" (11. 4-5), it depends what we mean by this expression. In all probability, the Jews did not arrive at the time of Alexander, but they are attested at the beginning of the Ptolemaic reign. Whether they received an lor\ 7coA,iieia from the Ptolemies is by no means certain, and depends upon the meaning we attach to this term, which is itself a problematic issue (see commentary to 11. 5-6). As for the 8 i K a i c x confirmed by the Roman prefects, it is not clear which kind of rights are meant here, since the preceding phrase deals with ion Tco^ueicx, while that which follows concerns traditional Jewish rights (see commentary to 11. 10-11). The statement to the effect that "Augustus did not prevent the continued appointment of ethnarchs" (11. 13-16), is also a half-truth: see commentary ad locum. 34
35
36
All these half-truths have often been regarded as a proof that the document is a forgery, or a Jewish "editing" of an original document. This possibility is obviously impossible to prove false. But alternative explanations are available as well. All these ambiguous statements appear not in the section which preserves the actual decisions of the emperor, but in the introduction where Claudius reports what he had learned (eniyvovc) as a historical background to his decisions. This has already been noted by Schwartz, who observes that "when it passes from the long "whereas" section to the operative "therefore" section, it guarantees religious rights only". 37
38
3 4
L. Troiani, "Giudaismo ellenistico e cristianesimo", in: Aspetti e Problemi dellEllenismo, ed. B. Virgilio, Pisa 1994, p. 197. See also L. Troiani, "La 'dispersione' giudaica", Coercizione e mobilitd umana nel mondo antico, ed. Marta Sordi, Milano 1995, p. 238. See also above, commentary to 11. 5 - 6 . Jews and Christians, p. 16. See also Jouguet, "Une lettre", p. 17. "Claudius", pp. 6 4 0 - 6 4 1 . S e e above, note 4, and V o n Doubschuetz, "Jews and Antisemites", p. 7 3 7 , note 20; Stein, Untersuchungen, p. 162. Schwartz, Agrippa I, p. 102; see also Wellhausen, Israelitische und jiidische Geschichte, p. 227, note 1. This difference is overlooked by Tcherikover, w h o understands the text to 3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
28. Ant. XIX,
317
280-285
It is not impossible that Claudius learned about the past of the Jews at Alexandria from the Jewish envoys themselves. An active role of the envoys of foreign countries is often found in Roman decrees. In the republican age, local agents apparently suggested to the Roman magistrates what should appear in local charters, and inscriptions make it clear that foreign ambassadors used to speak before the senate, sometimes at length. A conspicuous number of documents issued in the imperial age, too, attest that foreign envoys arrived in Rome, appeared before the emperor offering greetings from their city, often handed over to the emperor a copy of the decree passed by the city, and made their requests clear. Often what the envoys had said before the senate appears, in a CQndensed form, at the beginning of edicts, in that part, the narratio, which constitutes a kind of historical background to the decision. Nero writes to the Rhodians: "Your ambassadors ... both delivered the decree and explained about the sacrifices.... Concerning the instructions you had given them in connection with the city's republican constitution they made reports through Claudius Timostratus the chief ambassador, when they presented the arguments in my presence with great feeling.... I for my part have been well disposed toward you from my earliest years..." (GC no. 34, 55 CE, 11. 11-26). Similarly, Nero writes to Menophilus of Aezani: "Menecles and Metrodorus, your sons, came to me and explained all that you yourself have done in your ambition toward us and all that you proposed to your city..." (GC no. 35, 11. 3-6) and Hadrian writes concerning Egyptian matters: "Having learned that the rise of the Nile fell short or failed completely this time as it did last year, I realized that..." (GC no. 88 A, 136 CE, 11. 5-6). To the Beroeans, Hadrian writes: "The ambassadors [who came with your decree] obtained an audience [and reported] the information concerning [you..." (GC no. 89 A, 11. 6-7). 39
40
41
The information which was supplied to the emperors and to official magistrates often found its way into official documents. In republican days, Q. Fabius Maximus writes to the city of Dyme: "When the synedroi... explained me about the commission of crimes among you ... concerning these matters point by point we had a discussion ... in the presence of my Advisory Board" (RDGE no. 43 = RGE no. 50, possibly 115 BCE), and we have no hint that the information presented by the ot>ve8poi was critically evaluated
mean "explicitly that Claudius confirmed to the Jews of the city their civic rights [that is, gave them equality of rights with the Greeks]" (Hellenistic Civilization, p. 4 1 3 ) , which would obviously constitute "a stumbling block to everyone studying the civic status of the Jews in the Greek cities" (Hellenistic Civilization, p. 4 0 9 ) . S e e M.W. Frederiksen, "The Republican Municipal Laws: Errors and Drafts", JRS, 55, 1965, p. 189. 40 See for example RDGE nos. 15, 11. 2 9 - 3 8 ; 2 3 , 11. 1 8 - 2 3 ; 26 b, 11. 1 4 - 1 9 , 28 A, 11. 12-31. See Millar, The Emperor (supra, commentary to 1. 30), pp. 2 1 7 , 2 5 7 . 3 9
4 1
318
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
or compared with other possible available information. In the imperial age, we have an edict issued by the prefect of Egypt where the first lines report what a local axpaxx\y6q had "made clear to him" (P. Oxy. no. 237, col. 8, 11. 2 7 - 3 1 , 89 CE). Here, too, there is no indication that the information provided by the axpaTrryoc; was checked by the prefect. It seems therefore not impossible that what we find at the beginning of Claudius' edict quoted by Josephus is the information given to him by the Jewish envoys, who presented to Claudius their own, of course subjective, version of the historical past of the Jewish settlement at Alexandria. Other cases are attested, too, in which peoples believed in good faith that they were entitled to a legal status to which, in fact, they were not. In an edict granting Roman citizenship, Claudius states: "I permit them (the Anani, the Tulliassi and the Sinduni) to remain in that legal status in which they believed they were.... I do them this favor so that in regard to whatever things they have done as if they were Roman citizens.... I may now order those things or measures to be legally binding" (FIRA I, no. 71, 11. 29-37). 42
2
If in our edict the ambiguous statements found in the first section were taken from the report made by the Jews rather than from the documents brought by them from Alexandria, we may ask ourselves whether Claudius checked these documents. That he checked them carefully is highly doubtful. Dessau goes so far as to maintain that he did not even look at t h e m , while Willrich concludes that Claudius was not competent in evaluating ancient documents. In fact, Claudius' imperfect knowledge of the matters discussed in his'edicts is attested by one of his edicts, where we read: "Since, because of old and long pending controversies, even in the time of my uncle Tiberius Caesar... these controversies were only, if I remember correctly (quantum memoria refero), between Comum and the Bergalei..." (FIRA I, no. 71, 11. 7-10), from which we understand that the matter was entrusted to Claudius' memory, and that he did not take the trouble to check the documents. In the papyrus letter, too, Claudius confesses himself unable to say whether or not Alexandria had possessed a council in the Ptolemaic period (CPJII, no. 153, col. IV. 11. 66-7: "about the council, what your custom was under the old kings, I cannot say"). 43
44
2
45
4 2
On these statements, alternative meanings have been proposed by Kasher, The Jews, pp. 2 7 4 - 2 8 9 . Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, p. 6 7 3 . "Caligula", p. 4 0 4 , where he calls Claudius "credulous and uncritical", basing himself on Tac. Ann., 12, 6 1 , where Claudius is said to have granted immunity to the inhabitants of Cos on the basis of their most ancient history, intertwined with mythology, while passing over in silence "a large number of services rendered by the islanders to R o m e , and of victories in which they had borne their part". Rostovtzeff, however, followed by D e Sanctis, interprets this passage as meaning "I have nothing to say as to that point" (De Sanctis, "Claudio e i giudei", p. 4 8 6 ) . 4 3
4 4
4 5
28. Ant. XIX,
319
280-285
Lack of attention on Claudius' part to the matters laid before him is also attested by Suetonius. According to him, it happened during imperial hearings that Claudius fell asleep in the process, causing the advocati to raise their voices to wake him. Suetonius also tells us that on one occasion, while giving justice in the Forum of Augustus, he was attracted by the smell of lunch prepared for the Salian priests in the nearby temple of Mars, descended from his tribunal, and joined them at the meal (Claudius, 3 3 ) . Suetonius deals at length on the problematic mental conditions of Claudius. "He was now careful and shrewd", he writes, "sometimes hasty and inconsiderate, occasionally silly and like a crazy man. In revising the lists of the divisions of jurors he disqualified^ man who had presented himself without mentioning that he was immune-because of the number of his children, on the ground that he had a passion for jury-duty.... When a woman refused to recognize her son, and the evidence on both sides was conflicting, he forced her to admit the truth by ordering her to marry the young man ("If the story is true", Berbara Levick comments, "Claudius had already made up his mind about the case, and the order was a silly game". We also read in Suetonius: "...on a man's being convicted of forgery, someone cried out that his hands ought to be cut off; where upon Claudius insisted that an executioner be summoned at once with knife and block. In a case involving citizenship a fruitless dispute arose among the advocates as to whether the defendant ought to make his appearance in the toga or in a Greek mantle, and the emperor, with the idea of showing absolute impartiality, made him change his garb several times, according as he was accused or defended. In one case, he is credited with having rendered the following decision: 'I decide in favour of those who have told the truth'. By such acts as these he so discredited himself that he was held in general and open contempt" (Claud., 14-15. Similar charges are reported in ch. 16, in ch. 29, in ch. 38 and in ch. 39, where we read: "...men have marvelled at his absent-mindedness and blindness, or to use Greek terms, his (xexecopia and d(3A,8\j/ia"). Suetonius' testimony is generally accepted by scholars. Croisille stresses the instability of Claudius' personality, and Barbara Levick observes that "emotionalism made him liable to come to anomalous, even unfair decisions" and that "the lack of predictability in Claudius' proceedings meant that his court sometimes lacked dignity". Huzar observes that, as a judge, Claudius "functioned with... moral good will, emotional instability, and intellectual effort.... Normally, he was conscientious and able. But under pressure he could become erratic, careless, even foolish. When hurried or 4 6
47
48
4 6
S e e Millar, The Emperor, pp. 2 2 8 - 9 . Levick, Claudius, p. 117. S e e also Y. Bequignon, "Un trait d'esprit de l'empereur Claude", RA, 2 5 , 1946, pp. 2 2 8 - 2 2 9 . J.M. Croisille, "L'art de la composition chez Suetone d'apres les V i e s de Claude et de Neron", Annali dell'Istituto italiano per gli studi storici, II, 1970, pp. 7 3 - 8 7 ; Levick, Claudius, p. 117. 4 7
4 8
320
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
annoyed, he could pass judgement after hearing only one side, or neither side. Sometimes his carelessness seemed to stem from ignorance of the l a w " . From where Suetonius took these details about Claudius' personality is difficult to establish, but we should remember that he had public functions at court: he was scrinarius a studiis and a bibliothecis first, and then he was scrinarius ab epistulis, a task which he relinquished in 122 CE. The ab epistulis was responsible for private correspondence, which was strictly confidential. Cominck observes that Suetonius, as homo scholasticus, examined with interest more or less private archives. It appears that we cannot dismiss all the episodes reported by Suetonius concerning Claudius as indicating a personal negative attitude. Suetonius' attitude toward Claudius is defined by Bradley as non-committal, equal weight being given to the good and the b a d . A similar picture emerges from Dio. "According to Dio, 60, 17, 4", Levick observes, "Claudius deprived a Lycian of the Roman citizenship because of his imperfect knowledge of Latin.... Suetonius, 16, 2, tells what seems to be an inferior version of the same story, which fails to place it adequately in its context and refers to the victim as being a leading man of a province of Greece, or of the province of Greece.... Something must be allowed here, as Mr. Lepper suggested, for the idiosyncrasies of the Emperor. I invoke Pliny, Nat.Hist. 29, 54, as another instance of Claudius' liability to act hastily when he felt he was being let down, but this famous story of the execution of an aeques from Vasio who allowed a Druidical egg to fall from his toga when he was pleading a case before Claudius is better interpreted in terms of the Emperor's fear of being magicked than of cool distaste for a Narbonensian who still believed in the efficacy of Druidical eggs...". Returning to the case of the Lycian, Levick argues that "there is no indication that ability in Latin was a criterion for conferment and tenure of Roman citizenship... Dio gives the vital detail that it was his failure to understand what Claudius said to him that triggered off the explosion. Recent investigation into Claudius' medical condition accepts the hypothesis that Claudius suffered from cerebral palsy and was spastic. Speech difficulties may be a result of this, and they are attested in Claudius' case.... Mottershead 49
50
51
52
4 9
Huzar, "Claudius", p. 647; see the sources mentioned on p. 6 4 7 , note 170. S e e Millar, The Emperor (supra, commentary to 1. 30), pp. 6, 8 5 , 8 7 - 9 3 , 2 0 7 , 2 2 4 - 5 . L. D e Cominck, "Les sources documentaires de Suetone", ANRW, II, 3 3 , 5, 1 9 9 1 , pp. 3 6 7 5 - 6 , 3 6 8 7 . On the different kinds of information used by Suetonius, see also J. Gascou, Suetone historien, R o m e 1984, pp. 4 5 8 - 5 6 7 . K.R. Bradley, "The Imperial Ideal in Suetonius' 'Caesares'", ANRW, II, 3 3 , 5, 1 9 9 1 , pp. 3 7 2 5 , 3 7 2 8 . S e e also R.F. Martin, "Les paradoxes de l'empereur Claude", REL, 6 7 , 1989, pp. 1 4 9 - 1 6 2 . Contemporaries' negative attitudes about Claudius found expression also in the Ludus de morte Claudii or Apolocyntosis (see Momigliano, Claudius, pp. 74—79). See also J.E. Mohr Thygesen, "A Probable Diagnosis of the Roman Emperor Claudius", Nordisk medecinhistorisk Arsbok, 1987, pp. 5 3 - 5 8 (non vidi). 5 0
5 1
5 2
28. Ant. XIX,
321
280-285
further notes 'tension, distractibility and mood fluctuations, characteristic of Claudius, as traits often found in persons suffering from cerebral p a l s y ' " . Returning to the ambiguous expressions which appear in the first, long section of our edict, we should also recall that ambiguous and unclear expressions appear also in other documents issued by Claudius. An example is his statement to the Greeks of Alexandria that "all privileges which were granted to you by emperors, kings and prefects before my time shall be confirmed, in the same way that the god Augustus confirmed them" (CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 57-59), on which Tcherikover comments: "It is obvious that Augustus could not ratify the rights of the Alexandrians granted to them 'by former principes and prefects', since he was the first of the Roman emperors ruling in Egypt. The passage can serve as an example of the inaccuracies of the Letter (as many scholars have pointed out)". From the formal point of view, we notice that in our edict the historical background which constitutes the introduction is extremely long, occupying twenty-two lines as against the thirty of the whole document. As Huzar notes, "the first decree is one long, tangled sentence. Participles and infinitives pile up a variety of ideas until at the end the principal clauses present Claudius' orders". This style is characteristically Claudius' and appears both in his edicts and in his speeches. In the same way in which we find Emyvouq followed by a long series of phrases in accusative and infinitive in our document, so we find d v a y v o t x ; followed by a long period in another edict issued by Claudius generally known as de civitate Anaunorum {FIRA I, no. 71), where "the first part, which is an account of the controversies which took place in the past between two tribes and preceded Claudius' decision, is a single and very complicated period, which begins with a cwm-clause which is left unfinished with neither subject nor predicate, interrupted by two relative clauses. The second of these encloses a parenthetical sentence. The period is rather puzzling, and it has annoyed modern writers (see Mommsen's sarcasm), but the anacoluthon is probably a sign of oral dictation". Huzar observes that in Claudius' speech about the Gallians "in the first lines of the extant text (I 1-7), Claudius is attempting to calm fears and anticipate arguments against innovation by reminding his hearers that the Roman state 53
54
55
2
56
5 3
Barbara Levick, "Claudius Speaks: T w o Imperial Contretemps", Historia, 38, 1989, pp. 1 1 4 - 1 1 6 . For a more positive evaluation of Claudius' personality, however, see G. May, "L'activite juridique de l'empereur Claude", RHDFE, 15, 1936, pp. 5 5 - 9 7 ; 2 1 3 - 2 5 4 ; idem, "Notes complementaires sur les actes de l'empereur Claude", RHDFE, 2 3 , 1944, pp. 1 0 1 - 1 1 4 ; G. Voi, "La presunta ineptitudo di Claudio", Rendiconti dell'Istituto Lombardo, 105, 1971, pp. 6 2 - 6 8 , and Ann Major, "Was He Punished or Did He Leap? Claudius' Ascent to Power", AH, 2 2 , 1992, pp. 2 5 - 3 1 . CPJ, II, p. 47. "Claudius", p. 6 4 0 . Benner, The Emperor Says, pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 . 5 4
5 5
5 6
322
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
had always been evolving and peacefully creating fresh precedents. Then (I 8-24), with pedantic thoroughness and echoes of Livy, he traces the foreign birth of some of the kings of early Rome. His enthusiasm for ancient history carries him into a rambling digression into the careers of the kings and into the introduction of early officials (I 25-37); next, a passage on the waging of early wars permits him to boast of his own conquests in Britain (I 3 7 ^ 0 ) . But he checks his irrelevancies to return to the main theme of enlarging grants of citizenship.... When the text resumes... he cites Vienne in Gallia Narbonensis as a colony which has already sent distinguished leaders to the Senate. He mentions particularly his friend Lucius Vestinus and urges that offices be granted to his sons as well (II 6-14). His argument is disrupted when the mention of office holding by the people of Vienne triggers a volley of invective against another citizen, Publius Valerius Asiaticus, who had won the consulship (II 15-19). The attack against him and his brother seems a personal vendetta, relevant to his argument only if it forestalls other criticism or warns that admission to the Senate can not be granted negligently. Even if the attack has a planned purpose, and is not just a lapse of attention, it seems a rude break, shattering the cautious reasonableness of his historical precedents. The most curious sentence in the oration follows (II 20-22). Claudius addresses himself by name, reminding himself to inform the Senators of the direction and goal of his speech, since he has already progressed to the further boundaries of Narbonese Gaul in recounting citizenship rights. Perhaps the Senate or his own aides have nudged him back to his theme. Perhaps it is only an attempt to recover his composure after his fulminations against Publius Valerius. But it also provides a distinct if awkward turning point from the historical precedents so far surveyed to Claudius' proposals for the future". Moreover, "at times, he (Claudius) wanders from his theme in self-centered digressions of pride, spite, or favoritism. His learning is often tedious and irrelevant. His ponderous style is freighted with Livian phrases, archaisms, legalisms and 'racy colloquialisms'". "These distractions in oral presentation", Huzar notes, "were no threat in formal edicts and letters; but the other stylistic oddities and distinctive reasoning of Claudius consistently reappear". Another example may be found in the bronze tablet from Trent (CIL V 5050): "It is complete, and it bears a number of the elements very familiar in Claudian writings. There are some careless engraving errors; but the use found here of N instead of M before Q appears elsewhere in Claudius and was probably his idiosyncracy. The syntax throughout is technically correct, and yet some unusual patterns bespeak Claudian authorship. As in the Tagean decree, this edict begins with Claudius' names and titles plus dicit; 57
58
5 7
"Claudius", pp. 6 2 9 - 6 3 0 . See also p. 631 on the digressions, the awkwardnesses, the favoritism and the petty rancor found in this oration of Claudius. "Claudius", p. 6 3 2 . 5 8
28. Ant. XIX,
323
280-285
then the body of the text follows in the first person. The opening sentence begins with a cum clause which becomes miserably entangled in an over-long, disjointed sentence. The shifting syntactical scheme (anacoluthon) struggles to include all the causes of the citizenship problem, the attempted solutions so far, and Claudius' own proposals. In the kindest judgement, Claudius was attempting the periodic style of Livy; but Claudius' harsh breaks in thought and rhythm and his heaviness of style and verbal excesses appear as travesties of the periodic sentence. The sentences following are more straightforward, but are still complex, disjointed, and sometimes obscure in presentation and in ideas. Claudius intrudes personally in a conversational but tasteless fashion: to justify himself, to explaip his own reasoning or judgments, to reminisce, or to praise a friend. The impression given is that Claudius understood the problems and had decided on his realistic solutions, but had not fully organized his thoughts when he dictated his draft to a secretary. It is impossible to know whether Claudius was careless in not-working that first draft, or whether he lacked a sufficient sense of style to realize the clumsiness of his statement". 59
Regarding our document, Sherwine-White observes: "The genuine character of the wording of most of these edicts [quoted by Josephus] cannot be called in question. They contain the various quirks and oddities of expression that characterize the several genuine decrees and edicts of Claudius (cf. the references to the odd behaviour of Caligula, ILS, 205, 206, and the warning to the Jews against disturbances in P.Lond. 1 9 1 2 " . Huzar, too, points out that our edict and that quoted in Ant. XIX, 287-291 are "in the style of Claudius, and, indeed, are closely paralleled in an indisputably Claudian letter to the people of Alexandria dated shortly after these edicts. In the light of the similitarities of the documents and the fact that Josephus was publishing his work when the inscription could well have been extant, it is reasonable to see these edicts as genuine. 60
61
In our case, we may add that the historical background of the Jewish settlement in Alexandria was probably not particularly important to Claudius. Schwartz correctly points out that no mention of it appears in the section of the edict which preserved Claudius' actual decision, which follows the verb (3oi)A,oum. Claudius did not take care of details when he considered them irrelevant. In his papyrus letter, too, we read: "With regard to the responsibility for the disturbances.... I have not wished to make an exact inquiry" (CPJ II, no. 153, col. IV, 11. 76-77). 62
5 9
"Claudius", pp. 6 3 5 - 6 3 7 . Goodman, too, notes the "convoluted and verbose Latin with which Claudius addresses his subjects in an inscription which survives from Lugdunum (CIL XIII, no. 1668)"; M. Goodman, The Roman World, 44 BC-AD 180, London 1997, p. 5 5 . Roman Society, p. 102, note 5. 61 "Claudius", p. 6 3 8 . Agrippa I, p. 102. 6 0
6 2
324
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Then we should consider Claudius' reference to the "madness" of Caligula, which appears on 11. 20-21 and 2 4 - 2 5 . Of course, our doubts do not relate to the mental problems of Caligula. The question is whether a reference to the "madness" of his predecessor may have appeared in an authentic official document. Zielinski observes that "Josephe, entraine par sa colere, tres juste d'ailleurs, contre l'oppresseur de son peuple, s'etait permis de faire de l'empereur le porte-voix de ses propres sentiments", and Schwartz points out that the expression is unusual, and arouses scepticism. If we examine extant sources, however, we find that emotive expressions implying judgment on past political events are not unattested in official Roman documents. In the decrees issued by Antony and by Octavian jointly, we find that the expression dGeuixcoc;, unlawfully, is used concerning Brutus' and Cassius' behavior toward Asian cities. A striking example of outburst of irritation and self reproach, couched in affective language (mehercules) is found in an anonymous edict, possibly issued by Nero, where, after the narratio, the emperor burst out lamenting the poor success of the reform attempted by his father: E[t mehejrcules iam [dudum] id obtinendum fuit [cu]m a praescriptio eius edi[c]ti satis superq[uetempor]is quasi conive[n]tibus nobis tra[nsJcocurreri[n]t... As for the attitude shown by emperors toward their predecessors, it is not always a respectful one. Suetonius relates that Domitian "often assailed his (Titus') memory in ambiguous phrases, both in his speeches and in his edicts" (...defunctumque (Titum)... saepe etiam carpsit obliquis orationibus et edictis: Suet., Dom., 2, 3 ) . Scramuzza observes that "no one of the emperors from Augustus to Nero failed to criticize his predecessors and closest relatives. Augustus not only gave a malicious interpretation to the acts of his political rivals, but it is said that, while presenting Tiberius to the Senate as his successor, he took occasion to express disapproval of his manners...". He also mentions his systematic abuse of Lepidus, Tiberius' want of delicacy toward the memory of Livia, and Gaius' disrespect to Tiberius on public as well as private occasions. Moreover, Gaius even denounced 63
64
65
66
6 7
6 3
On which, see J. Lucas, "Un empereur psychopathe. Contribution a la p s y c h o l o g i e du Caligula de Suetone", AC, 36, 1967, pp. 1 5 9 - 1 8 9 ; R.S. Katz, "The Illness of Caligula", CW, 6 5 , 1972, pp. 2 2 3 - 2 2 5 ; M.G. Morgan, "Caligula's Illness Again", CW, 66, 1973, pp. 3 2 7 - 3 2 9 ; V. Massaro, I. Montgomery, "Gaius: Mad, Bad, 111 or All Three?", Latomus, 37, 1978, pp. 8 9 4 - 9 0 9 ; V. Massaro, I. Montgomery, "Gaius (Caligula) doth murder sleep", Latomus, 38, 1979, pp. 6 9 9 - 7 0 0 ; J. Pigeaud, "Caligula, l'empereur fou", L'Histoire, 73, 1984, pp. 2 6 - 3 0 ; D.T. Benediktson, "Caligula's Madness: Madness or Interictal Temporal Lobe Epilepsy?", CW, 82, 1988/9, pp. 3 7 0 - 3 7 5 ; idem, "Caligula' Phobias and Philias: Fear of Seizure?", CJ, 87, 1 9 9 1 - 2 , pp. 1 5 9 - 1 6 3 . 6 4
Zielinski, "L'empereur Claude", p. 131; Schwartz, Agrippa I, pp. 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 . Reynolds, Aphr. no. 7 , 1 . 4. See her comments on p. 5 1 . FIRA I, no. 91,11. 14—16. The restoration mehercules is made by Mitteis, w h o adduces two passages in Tacitus exhibiting similar expressions in official imperial texts. See Benner, The Emperor Says, pp. 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 . See Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 149. 6 5
6 6
6 7
2
28. Ant. XIX,
280-285
325
his acts in the Senate, Nero made fun of Claudius in the course of his funeral oration, and vented every kind of insult on his memory, and Domitian assailed Titus' memory. According to Ramage, Claudius and Vespasian carried out a systematic denigration of their predecessors, Gaius and Nero, in order to dissociate themselves from their unattractive habits and policies. "While Claudius seems to have organized no official damnatio memoriae of Gaius", Ramage observes, "he took many of the steps that would have been part of such an action. This is borne out both by Seneca, who writes in the Apocolocyntosis: C. Caesarem non desiit mortuum persequi, and by coins. Most of Claudius' coin types repeat those of Augustus with the obvious purpose of relating Claudius directly to the empire's founder. Libertas, Victoria, Pax, and perhaps Spes along with Ceres and ob Cives Servatos are the most important of these. But each of these types may also be construed as negative commentary on the reign of his immediate predecessor, Gaius. By adopting Libertas as a virtue, as Gnecchi says, Claudius 'protested against the fanatical absolutism of his predecessor Caligula'... Pax as a Claudian virtue carried many of the same overtones.... Pax existed on two levels, the civil and the military. Gaius' times are represented by Seneca as being a period of civil turbulence.... Claudius' Pax, then, would stand for a return to peace, quiet, and normalcy in the city. This policy was evident in such actions as Claudius' promise of moderation before the senate, the annullment or repeal of many of Gaius' acts, the return of exiles, and the granting of amnesty to political opponents. Victoria, which also appears on Claudius' coins, was therefore as much victory over tyranny as it was anything else.... Ob Cives Servatos on Claudius' coins, too, reflects negatively on his predecessor.... It could easily be taken as referring to Claudius' saving the citizens from Gaius' oppressive rule. In fact, Gaius was the only enemy from which the new emperor could have saved the Romans in A.D. 41, when this motto first appeared on his coins.... As for the coin Constantia, Fears suggests that it stands for 'stability' in opposition to the 'excesses of the arbitrary rule of a tyrant'.... These Claudian coin types appear in the first year of the emperor's reign. Thus it is clear that Claudius wasted no time in going about creating a positive and popular image for himself. From the first day of his reign his propaganda machine was apparently associating him with his great predecessor Augustus and disassociating him from the undesirable Gaius.... There is enough evidence to suggest that Claudius prompted this image of a mad Gaius, and, as the furiosa inconstantia of the Ad Polybium shows, his madness in more than one instance is designated as being the opposite of constantia.... The inscription that commemorates Claudius' rebuilding of the Aqua Virgo (ILS, I, no. 205) is a public and permanent condemnation of Gaius' approach to matters of building: Ti. Claudius... arcus ductus aquae 68
6 8
Scramuzza, The Emperor
Claudius,
p. 131; sources are quoted on p. 2 7 6 , note 5.
326
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
Virginis disturbatos per C. Caesarem a fundamentis novos fecit ac restituit (25 January, 45 or 46 CE). The clear antithesis here between disturbatos and a fundamentis novos fecit ac restituit may be read as a subtle opposition between the inconstantia that could destroy an aqueduct for the purpose of building an amphiteater and the constantia which could restore the aqueduct systematically from bottom to top and ignore the amphiteatre". Clearly, in matters such as authenticity, proofs can not be adduced, and a final assessment always remains a personal judgement. As Gager observes concerning the authenticity of Hecataeus' testimony quoted by Josephus in C. A'p. I, 183-204, "there seems to be no valid reason for denying at least possible authenticity. Probability is much more an affair of one's subjective parti pris. What appears to one person as strong evidence may appear to another as a tentative hypothesis". Prof. Martin Goodman pointed out that if we prefer to view our text as a forgery, this means we need to find out who, when, where and why, between Claudius' and Josephus' time, somebody would have wanted to forge this document, and why he attached to it the name of such a controversial figure as the emperor Claudius. And we may quote a particularly felicitous expression of Prof. Fergus Millar, who on this same occasion suggested that "this is a reasonable example of an edict which could have been issued by Claudius". 69
70
71
Ant. X I X , 2 8 6 Josephus' C o m m e n t s
286
(v. 3) To | i e v ov\ eiq 'AX,E^dv5peiav \rnep xcov l o v 8aicov 8idxay|ia x o m o v fjv xov xporcov y e y p a u UEVOV xo 8' ei<; xf\v aXkr\v oiKOi)UEvnv EIXEV ovxcoc;. 1-3. xo |iev... ouicoq] K a i eiq xf|v a.Wr\v oiKO'uu.evriv 5 i d y p a u | i a T a m a <|)pd£ov E.
6 9
eoxeiXe
E.S. Ramage, "Denigration of Predecessor under Claudius, Galba, and Vespasian", Historia, 3 2 , 1983, pp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 6 . The same conclusions are reached by H. Zehnacker, "Tensions et contradictions dans 1'empire au Ier siecle: les temoignages numismatique", in: Opposition et resistances a Vempire d'Auguste a Trajan, ed. A. Giovannini, D.van Berchem, Vandoeuvres-Geneve 1987, pp. 3 2 5 - 3 2 9 . J.G. Gager Jr., "Pseudo-Hecataeus Again", ZNW, 6 0 , 1969, p. 139. They expressed these v i e w s during a seminar held at the Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies in Yarnton Manor (Oxford) in the summer of 1 9 9 8 . 1 wish to express my appreciation to both these scholars for their valuable comments. 7 0
7 1
Ant. XIX, 286. Josephus'
Comments
327
Translation Such was the tenor of the edict sent to Alexandria on behalf of the Jews. And that to the rest of the world ran as follows. Commentary Here, too, as above (Ant. XIV, 2 1 7 - 8 , 223^1, 228; XVI, 165, 166, 167), Josephus adds a few words, which do not provide any new information, but just show us his wish to link the document just quoted with the next.
29. Ant. X I X , 2 8 7 - 2 9 1 41 C E
Edict issued by Claudius extending the rights given to Alexandrian Jews to all the Jews living in the Roman world. Bibliography H. Willrich, Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-judischen Geschichte und Literatur, Gottingen 1900, p. 4 3 ; E. von Doubschuetz, "Jews and Antisemites in Ancient Alexandria", A / T , 8 , 1904, p. 7 3 7 , note 20; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans V empire romain, I,Paris 1914, p. 1 5 1 ; G . D e Sanctis, "Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria", RFIC, 5 2 , 1924, pp. 5 0 0 - 5 0 1 = idem, Scritti minori, IV, ed. A. Ferrabino, S. A c c a m e , Roma 1976, pp. 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 ; A. von Premerstein, "Das Datum des Prozesses des Isidoros in den sogenannten heidnischen Martyrerakten", Hermes, 67, 1932, p. 184; V.M. Scramuzza, "The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors towards Judaism", in: The Beginnings of Christianity, I, 5, ed. F.J. Foakes-Jackson, K. Lake, London 1933, p. 2 9 2 ; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, pp. 4 1 3 - 4 1 5 ; A . C . Johnson, P.R. Coleman-Norton, E. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin 1961, p. 138; A. Momigliano, Claudius the Emperor and His Achievements, Cambridge 1961, pp. 3 0 - 3 3 ; F. Millar, "The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces", JRS, 56, 1966, p. 161; H. Bardon, Les Empereurs et les lettres latines d'Auguste a Hadrian, Paris 1968, p. 139; A . N . Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome, Cambridge 1970, pp. 8 9 - 9 0 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Friihjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980, p. 376; Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire, Goteborg 1975, pp. 1 0 6 - 7 ; D . Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstucken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', Chiron, 5, 1975, pp. 3 3 2 - 3 3 4 ; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 195, 247; F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977, pp. 2 5 5 , 2 5 8 - 9 ; A . M . Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire", ANRW, II, 13, 1980, p. 6 8 5 ; Eleanor Huzar, "Claudius — the Erudite Emperor", ANRW, II, 3 2 , 1 , 1984, p. 6 3 8 - 6 4 0 ; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 115; D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Tubingen 1990, pp. 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 ; B. Wander, Trennungsprozesse zwischen frtihen Christentum und Judentum im 1. Jh. n.Chr., Tubingen 1994, p. 2 2 1 ; Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius, Stuttgart 1996, pp. 1 1 0 - 1 1 3 ; P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge-London 1997, p. 147.
287
288
(v. 3) TiPepioq KXai)8io^ Katcap EePaaToq r e p u a v i K o q dp/iepeix; LieyiaToq 8r|u,ap%iKfi<; e^oDotaq urcaioq xeipoxovnGeiq TO Semepov A,eyei. aiTnaauevcov \ie PaciAeccx; 'AypiTCTca Kai 'Hpc65ou TCOV <^iXxax(ov
29. Ant. XIX,
07ico(; ai)Yxcopf|aai|Lii xd avxd SiKaia Kai xoi<; ev 7cdA,oum eKKeiue:v6v xe e%eiv OI>K eA,axxov fjiiepcov xpidKovxa dGev e^ emjceSou Ka?ico<; dvaYvcoaGfjvai Suvaxai. JIOI,
329
287-291 5
10
15
20
25
14. e%e\. coni. Niese.
Translation Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Pontifex Maximus, of tribunician power, elected consul for the second time, proclaims: King Agrippa and Herod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the same rights to be maintained for the Jews throughout the empire under the Romans as those in Alexandria enjoy, I very gladly consented, not merely in order to please those who petitioned me, but also because in my opinion the Jews deserve to obtain their request on account of their loyalty and friendship to the Romans. In particular, I did so because I hold it right that not even Greek cities should be deprived of these privileges, seeing that they were in fact guaranteed for them in the time of the divine Augustus. It is right, therefore, that the Jews throughout the whole world under our sway should also observe the customs of their fathers without let or hindrance. I enjoin upon them also by these presents to avail themselves of this kindness in a more reasonable spirit, and not to set at nought the beliefs about the gods held by other peoples but to keep their own laws. It is my will that the ruling 1
1
"privileges": Feldman, Loeb ed., IX, p. 3 5 1 .
330
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
bodies of the cities and colonies and municipia in Italy and outside Italy, and the kings and other authorities through their own ambassadors, shall cause this edict of mine to be inscribed, and keep it posted for not less than thirty days in a place where it can plainly be read from the ground. Commentary 1-3. The titles of Claudius which appear here are also found in three letters sent by Claudius to the Alexandrians (GC no. 19), to the Samians (GC no. 20), and to the Laertitiae (GC no. 22), all of them written in 41 CE. Obviously we do not find cmTOKpdTCop and Tcaxrip Tcaxpi5o<;, which appear only in the documents written since 42 CE (GC nos. 23, 42 CE; 24 B, 42 CE; 26, 45 or 46 CE; 27, 46 CE; 28, 47 CE; 29, 48 CE; 30, 4 7 - 5 0 CE; 31, 52 CE). The fact that we find "elected consul for the second time" among the titles of Claudius enables us to establish the date, since this title was given to Claudius in 41. As for the month, it is difficult to establish. Kasher follows Amusin (I.D. Amusin, "The Letter and Edict of Claudius Caesar", [Russian], VDI, 2, 1949, p. 225) who maintains that the elections took place on February 28 (The Jews, p. 270), but regrettably no reference is given by Amusin in this regard. Gaheis, on the other hand, observes that Claudius "seems to have been designated immediately as consul for the next year.... Accordingly the form of his name and title immediately after his accession to power was: "Ti. Claudius Drusi f(ilius) Caesar Augustus Germanicus pontifex maximus tribunicia potestate imperator consul designatus II" (M. Gaheis, "Ti. Claudius Nero Germanicus", RE, I, 6, 1899, no. 256, col. 2787; and nothing new appears in W. Eck, "Claudius, Kaiser III, 1", Der Neue Pauly, 3, 1977, coll. 22-23). I wish to thank Prof. Zeev Rubin for these references. 3. On the verb A,eyei, "proclaims", which is the common opening of imperial edicts, see document no. 22, commentary to 1. 2 and document no. 28, commentary to 1. 2. 4. (M.) Iulius Agrippa I (10 BCE-44 CE), grandson of Herod and Mariamne, tetrarch of Batanea (the Bashan) and Galilee (37—41 CE), was king of Judaea from 41 to 44 CE. See PIR , 4, 3, 1966, s.v. (M.) Iulius Agrippa (I.), no. 131, pp. 130-132. On his three names, Schwartz observes: "The three names all reflect his grandfather's closeness to Rome. 'Marcus' recalls Herod's early dependence upon Marcus Antonius, who was responsible for his enthronement; 'Julius' memorializes Julius Caesar, who variously honored Antipater, Herod's father; it was also, of course, the gens of the emperor throughout all of Herod's career, Augustus. As for 'Agrippa', the name by which he was known, it recalled M. Vipsanius Agrippa, Augustus' son in law and right-hand man and Herod's friend" (Agrippa I, p. 40). On Agrippa I, see also E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, pp. 442-454. 2
29. Ant. XIX,
287-291
331
4 . Herod II, grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne, brother of Agrippa I, was king of Chalcis from 4 1 to 4 8 CE. See Edna Elazary, "Herod II", EJ, 8 , 1 9 7 2 , coll. 3 8 7 - 3 8 8 . 4-5. x c o v (J)IX,TCXTCOV u.oi. The expression is a common one in Roman official documents. Millar observes that emperors normally used in their edicts language which implies that these are essentially personal decisions and pronouncements (see parallels in: The Emperor, p. 2 5 9 and pp. 1 1 0 - 1 2 2 on the meaning of the term amici in reference to the emperor). In the case of Agrippa, however, the relationship of Claudius was a real one. On Agrippa's role in Claudius' rise to the throne, see below, p. 3 3 6 . 5 . OTCCOC; auYXCopffomui. On OTCCO*;, see document no. 4 , commentary to 1. 5 ; on avyxcopeco, see below, commentary to 1. 8 . The fact that Agrippa and Herod asked Claudius to confirm the rights of the Jews is not surprising. Greek inscriptions and papyri attest that the initiative for the rights accorded upon provincials often came from the recipients of the grants themselves. See below, pp. 3 3 4 - 3 3 6 . Also in the case of the Jews, since the republican era leading figures of the political scene in Judaea are attested to have intervened on behalf of the diaspora Jews. From the documents quoted by Josephus, we learn that Hyrcanus intervened twice on behalf of the Asian Jews, asking confirmation of their rights from Dolabella (document no. 9 ) and from Gaius Rabirius (document no. 1 7 ) . 5 - 7 . Hennig observes that "if we understand the a i ) t d 5 i K a i a as referring to citizenship rights, we would find that all the Jews in the diaspora received citizenship rights, which is not credible" (Hennig, "Zu neuverdffentlichten Bruchstiicken", p. 3 3 3 ) . From the context of document no. 2 8 , 11. 1 0 , 1 2 , however, we may also understand that these rights were not civil rights, but rather rights related to the exercise of the Jewish T c d x p i o i voum. See above, document no. 2 8 , commentary to 11. 1 0 - 1 1 . On the verb (jn^dxTCO, see below, commentary to 1. 1 6 . 8 . The verb avyxcopeco is a technical one, which often appears in Roman official documents to denote granting of rights and privileges. On its use in the republican era, see document no. 3 , commentary to 11. 2 - 3 . In the imperial era, the verb appears in two epistles of Antoninus Pius, one to the citizens of Balbura (GC no. 1 5 9 , 11. 1 9 - 2 0 , 1 5 8 CE) and the other to the citizens of Antinoopolis (GC no. 1 6 5 , 1 . 3 9 , 1 5 2 CE), in a letter of Severus and Caracalla to Arsinoite Paenistae (GC no. 2 4 2 , 1 . 9 ) and probably in a decision of Severus and Caracalla (GC no. 2 4 3 , 1. 8 , 2 0 0 CE). See also A. Baroni, "I terreni e i privilegi del tempio di Zeus a Baitokaike (IGLS VII, 4 0 2 8 ) " , Studi Ellenistici, ed. B. Virgilio, Pisa 1 9 8 4 , p. 1 5 1 . The verb also appears in two documents quoted by Josephus (nos. 2 1 and 2 7 ) . 1 0 - 1 1 . 8id x f i v Tcpoq 'Pcou.aio'uc; Tcianv K a i §\k\av. The Jewish niaxiq towards the Roman state (TCICJTIV x e K a i o"Tcoi>8f|v) is mentioned as a reason for the granting of rights already in Caesar's days (see document no. 1 , 11. ,
332
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
14-15). Loyalty and good will of provincials are often mentioned in Claudius' edicts as reasons for confirming their rights. See below, pp. 337-338. The nicxiq of Aphrodisias is the reason also for the grants given to the city by Traianus Decius and Herennius Etruscus (Aphr. no. 25,1. 9). 11-14. Claudius' concern for the rights of the Greeks is attested also in CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 57-59. See also below, p. 338. On the verb xripeco, which is a technical term, see document no. 14, commentary to 1. 8. 14-16. This is the first unambiguous mention of rights applying to all the Jews living in the Roman world (see below, pp. 444-^-45). We may notice that here Claudius recognizes the legitimacy of the Jewish "customs", while below, on 11. 19-20, he mentions the "Jewish laws". On the difference between the two expressions from the legal point of view, see below, pp. 416-417. The expression Kaxd xd rcdxpia eGrj also appears in documents nos. 1,11. 2 3 - 2 4 ; 7, 11. 17-18; 21,1. 7. 16. The verb (jnAdxxco often appears in imperial edicts with the meaning of "preserving" rights which have previously been given. See GC nos. 3,1. 5; 15, col. II, 1. 18; 19, col. Ill, 1. 54; 37,1. 35; 42,1. 3; 47,1. 7; 165, col. 1,1. 38, col. II, 1. 39; 166,1. 51; 218,1. 12; 241,1. 4; 279,1. 6; 282,1. 7; 284,1. 12. 17. The verb napayyeXXa) is used with similar meaning in Hadrian's letter to Aphrodisias (Aphr. no. 15,1. 16). 17. Benner suggests that (j)i?uxv0pco7r,ta here has the sense "benevolent content of edict". "A quality of the emperor is substituted for the actual manifestation of that quality, i.e. beneficium or edictum. The expression is a rhetorical device, generalizing the acts of the emperor as typical" (The Emperor Says, pp. 106-7). 18-19. This is the only phrase which appears in the Roman documents quoted by Josephus referring to the religious background of the Jewish-Greek conflict. As for the word 8£ioiScaux)via, it is also used referring to the Jews in the documents mentioning Lentulus' exemption of Roman Jews from military service (nos. 10, 1. 4; 12, 1. 9; 13, 1. 3; 15, 1. 7; 16, 11. 16-17). On this expression in Greek inscriptions, see document no. 10, commentary to 11. 3-4. 20. Siaxayjxa is the official designation of imperial decrees. See also document no. 22,1. 22 and GC no. 2,1. 1. 2 0 - 2 6 . The order of publication, introduced by the verb |3oi>A,o|j.ai (on this verb, see document no. 24, commentary to 1. 4) often appears in Roman official documents. Benner observes: "Edicts were always published on a whitewashed board, album. The writing is in black with red headlines (atramentum, rubricae). It is posted (proponitur) for a fixed time, generally thirty days, palam ... unde de piano recte legi possit (Dig., 14, 3, 11, 3)" (The Emperor Says, pp. 25, 30). Claudius' order of publication finds close parallels in inscriptions and papyri. See below, pp. 3 3 9 - 3 4 1 .
29. Ant. XIX,
333
287-291
The authenticity of this document is completely denied by Hennig and Boterman; some scholars hesitate, while others suggest "some light Jewish editing". Schwartz observes that it is possible that this edict "is also unauthentic, but the two [edicts of Claudius quoted by Josephus] need not stand and fall together and we find only one datum [namely, the expression appearing on 11. 11-14], which argues in that direction. Moreover, we may note that this ... edict is much more evenhanded than the first one.... Again, the second edict concludes with formal language lacking from the first (par. 291). All of these points support the authenticity of the second edict, with perhaps some light Jewish editing". Scholars are also found who accept the document as genjuine; Huzar, for example, observes that this edict "is unusually formal for Claudius. The grammatical structure is less run-on and awkward since it is divided into three discrete sentences. It also lacks Claudius' frequent personal parenthetic comments. But, in different ways, the styles of both decrees [this and that concerning Alexandrian Jews] argue strongly for Claudian authorship". 1
2
3
4
5
6
The problem remains of explaining why on 11. 2 - 3 we find the expression vnaxoq xeipOTOvnGeii;, instead of the much more common vnaxoc, d7io888£iY|iEvo(;, which appears in other edicts issued by Claudius (for example, GC nos. 19, col. II, 1. 15; 20, 11. 5-6; 21, 11. 17-18; 23, 1. 2). De Sanctis takes this unusual term to mean that the translation from Latin to Greek had possibly been made by Josephus himself or another private hand (which, however, is not probable), while according to Hennig the fact that we find here xmaxoc, xeipoTOvnGeiq instead of xmaxoq cxTtoSeSeiYM-evoi; would be a proof that the document is a forgery. Against this possibility, De Sanctis observes quoting Motzo "quanto appaia inverosimile il supporre che Giuseppe abbia falsificato un atto imperiale cos! importante, in Roma, 7
8
9
1
Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken", pp. 3 3 2 - 3 3 4 ; Botermann, Das Judenedikt, 110-113. At the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, Von Doubschuetz writes: "The t w o epistles [of Claudius quoted by Josephus], while they are under strong suspicion of being fabrications, may be genuine" ("Jews and Antisemites", p. 7 3 7 , note 20) and the same v i e w is still maintained in the nineties. Wander observes that "the second edict [of Claudius] is more reliable" but does not take a clear position (Wander, Trennungsprozesse,ip. 221). Against the v i e w s of D e Sanctis, of Bell and of Botermann, w h o maintain that if the edict to the Jews of Alexandria is a forgery (or is genuine), the same must apply to the other one of Claudius: D e Sanctis, "Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria", p. 500; H.I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt, London 1924, p. 15; Botermann, Das Judenedikt, pp. 1 1 0 - 1 . Agrippa I, p. 105. Smallwood, The Jews, pp. 195, 247; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 4 1 3 ; Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 115. "Claudius", p. 640. "Claudio e i giudei", pp. 5 0 0 - 5 0 1 . S e e below, p. 367. Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken", p. 3 3 3 , note 39. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
334
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus 10
a distanza di soli cinquant'anni dagli avvenimenti". The fact remains: the use of the verb xeipoxoveco is unattested in contemporary imperial edicts. If we take the recent volumes of the SEG, we find that the verb xeipoTOveco is rather archaic, being attested in Attica mostly for the period from the fifth to the first centuries B C E . In Cyrenaica, on the other hand, the verb is attested as late as the VI century CE (SEG XXXVIII, 1988, no. 1866, 1. 9, from Ain Mara). Are we allowed to speculate that in other places a different use was common? In this case, one could wonder whether in our text the change from vnaxoq anodedeiy^ievoq to vnaxoq xeipOTovnGeic; might have occurred in the process of copying the document by a local scribe. Another possibility is that Josephus himself may be regarded as responsible for the change. If he read a considerable number of lines of his document, and then started to write it down, he may have inadvertently substituted % £ i p o x o v r | 0 £ t < ; for tmo8e8£iY|Li.£VO<;. In fact, x £ i p o T O v r | 0 £ i < ; was used by Josephus a number of times in his Antiquities, twice in the case of kings "elected by God" (Saul in Ant. VI, 312; David in Ant. VII, 206), and once for the election of the High Priest (Ant. XIII, 45). 11
Apart from this expression, the form of the edict is the usual one of contemporary imperial edicts known to us from extant inscriptions and papyri. The text is formulated in first person. It starts with the titles of Claudius, followed by Xeyei, "proclaims". This is the usual beginning of extant e d i c t s . The confirmation of the Jews' rights to observe the customs of their fathers is preceded by the reasons which prompted Claudius' decision, in a style which is characteristically Claudius'. The first reason invoked by Claudius is the desire to please "those who petitioned" him, namely, Agrippa and Herod (11. 3 - 9 ) . Hennig observes that "it is not credible that Agrippa and Herod appear in the text as initiators", but the intervention of influential friends in order to get rights and privileges is well attested in inscriptions since the republican age. That of Mithridates, a citizen of Pergamum, was decisive in obtaining for his city the grants given by Caesar (RDGE no. 54 and IGRR 12
13
14
1 0
"Claudio e i giudei", in: Scritti minori, p. 108. In the fifth century was written SEG X X X I V , 1984, no. 1 6 , 1 . 2 4 ; in the fourth century SEG XXXIII, 1983, no. 136; X X X I V , 1984, no. 122, 11. 6 0 - 6 1 ; XLI, 1 9 9 1 , no. 5 0 , 1 . 7. For the third century w e have SEG XXVIII, 1978, nos. 60,11. 9 8 - 9 9 ; 107,1. 17; X X X I , 1 9 8 1 , no. 120; X X X I V , 1984, no. 7 5 0 , 1 . 1; X X X V I I I , 1988, nos. 7 4 , 1. 7; 8 8 , 11. 6 - 7 ; X X X I X , 1989, no. 125, 1. 10; X L , 1990, nos. 129, 1. 4; 135, 1. 5; 141, 11. 2, 10; 6 1 4 , 1. 1; XLI, 1 9 9 1 , nos. 7 4 , 1 . 6; 7 6 , 1 . 3; 8 6 , 1 . 4; 8 7 , 1 . 2; 9 0 , 1 . 3; 9 2 , 1 . 2; 1 3 5 , 1 . 2; XLIII, 1993, nos. 3 1 , 1 . 4; 3 8 , 1. 3; 4 0 , 1. 3; 4 2 , 1. 3; 4 3 , 11. 9, 2 5 . In the second century were written SEG X X V I I , 1977, no. 2 6 1 ; X X X I I , 1982, no. 129, 1. 10; X X X I V , 1984, no. 9 4 , 11. 6 - 7 ; X X X V I I I , 1988, no. 108, 1. 8; X X X I X , 1989, nos. 1243, col. IV, 1. 35; 1244, col. II. 11. 7, 24; X L , 1990, no. 1 2 1 , 1 . 9; XLI, 1 9 9 1 , no. 162, 1. 2; XLIII, 1993, nos. 6 8 , 1. 1; 381 A , 11. 3 6 - 3 7 , and in the second or first century B C E SEG X X X I I , no. 2 1 8 , 1 . 1; X L , 1990, no. 9 5 6 , II A, 11. 6 - 7 . 1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
S e e above, p. 19. S e e Huzar's observations (supra, pp. 3 1 4 - 3 1 6 ) . Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken", p. 3 3 3 .
29. Ant. XIX,
335
287-291
IV, no. 1682), and that of Seleucus was responsible for the grants given to Rhosos. Octavian's reply to the embassy from the city of Rhosos which met him at Ephesus states: "The ambassadors sent by you... having traveled to Ephesus to me, addressed me on the matters on which they had instructions.... When I come to those parts I will do my best to be of service to you and to preserve the privileges of the city; and I will do this the more gladly because of Seleucus my naval commander who served with me throughout the war, distinguished himself on all occasions and gave every evidence of goodwill and loyalty. He has lost no opportunity of interceding on your behalf and of giving enthusiastic support to your interests". In another letter written by Octavian to Rhosos, too, we read: "Seleucus, your citizen [and] my admiral who has campaigned with me in all the wars and has given many proofs of his goodwill and loyalty and bravery (7c[oA.A.]d<; ano[$£i£,£iq K]OX xx\q e\)voia<; K a i xf\q Tciaxeox; K a i xf\q dv5peia<; 8e5coKt6c;)... has been honored.... Thus I will do everything possible for you more gladly [because of Sel]eucus. Thus assured, send to me for whatever you wish" (RDGE no. 58, doc. IV = RGE no. 86, 11. 87-93). Similarly, the intervention of a personal friend is mentioned by Marcus Antonius in his letter to the KOIVOV of Asia concerning the Association of Victorious Athletes: "Earlier I was met in Ephesus by Marcus Antonius Artemidoros, my friend and (physical) trainer... in regard to the former privileges of the Association, that they may remain intact... (asking) that I consent to write immediately to you (about them),... and I did consent, wishing both because of my friend Artemidoros and for (the sake of) their eponymous priest to do (them) this favor.... And now again Artemidoros has met me (and asked) that... Preferring in no way to fail Artemidoros, who about these matters has come to me, I granted..." (RDGE no. 57 = RGE no. 85). At Aphrodisias, a local citizen, Zoilus, seems to have helped to keep the city loyal, not simply to the Caesarian party but especially to Octavian, and Octavian himself attests that this was important in influencing him to give valuable privileges to the c i t y . 15
16
In the case of Claudius, personal friends are often mentioned both in his speeches and in his edicts. In his speech about the Gallians, for example, after mentioning Vienne in Gallia Narbonensis as a colony which has already sent distinguished leaders to the senate, Claudius mentions particularly his friend Lucius Vestinus and urges that offices be granted to his sons as w e l l . In a 17
15
RDGE no. 58, doc. Ill = RGE no. 86, 11. 7 6 - 8 4 . See F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate", JRS, 6 3 , 1973, p. 58. "Caesar to Stephanus, greeting. You know my affection for... my friend Zoilos. I have freed his native city and recommended it to Antonius.... This one city I have taken for my own out of all Asia. I wish these people to be protected as m y o w n townsmen" (Aphr. no. 10, possibly dated 39 BCE). See Reynolds' comments on pp. 38, 9 7 - 9 8 . " CIL XIII, 1, 1, 1668, II, 11. 6 - 1 4 . See Huzar, "Claudius", p. 6 2 9 . S e e also p. 631 on the digressions, the awkwardnesses, the favoritism and the petty rancor found in this 1 6
336
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
letter of Claudius confirming the rights of the Dionysiac Artists, too, we learn that "M. Valerius Junianus, who belongs to my household, called this to my attention" (GC no. 29, 48 CE, 11. 10-12), and a close parallel to our document is found in the letter to the Guild of Roving Athletes Devoted to Heracles, where Claudius mentions "C. Julius Antiochus the king [of Commagene] and Julius Polemo the king of Pontus, valued friends of mine (dvSpdci TEIUIOK; |io[i K a i ] <|)i?ioi<;)" (GC no. 2 8 , 4 7 CE, 11. 21-23). The intervention of Agrippa in favor of the Jews therefore does not represent an isolated case. In our case, it appears that Claudius also had personal reasons for acceding to Agrippa's request. From Ant. XIX, 212-273 we learn that Agrippa had had an important role in Claudius' rise to the throne after Caligula's murder. Schwartz stresses that this role should not be overestimated. If we take into consideration the sources dealing with the role played by Agrippa in Claudius' successful rise to the throne, namely, Dio LX, 8, 2; Jos., Bell. II, 2 0 6 - 7 , and Ant. XIX, 236-277, we realize that Dio's account seems to be the most reliable of the three. And Dio simply notes that Claudius enlarged the kingdom of Agrippa, who had cooperated with him in (seeking) rule, since he had then happened to be in Rome. "A minor role", Schwartz observes, "is given to Agrippa also by the Roman source followed by Josephus in his narrative in Bell., who presents him as the messenger for the confident and energetic Claudius. Only the source which Josephus used in his Ant. narrative makes Agrippa's role central and crucial; Agrippa convinced Claudius not to capitulate to the Senate, and then craftily convinced the Senate to avoid attacking Claudius (Ant. XIX, 236-245). According to this Jewish report, Claudius indeed owed his crown to Agrippa". The Jewish authorship and the romantic nature of this source lead Schwartz to conclude that its report is not to be followed here: "Agrippa's role was important and not to be forgotten, but... must we doubt that Claudius and the Senate were clay in our hero's hands.... In sum, our impression is that Claudius' enthronement of Agrippa in 41 C E . over the rest of Herod's kingdom was not only, and not mainly, a result of their shared childhood or of Claudius' debt to Agrippa, although these circumstances did not hurt. Rather, the main consideration would seem to be the one which, we have frequently suggested, guided all the emperors since Augustus: the hope that a Roman-raised Herodian-Hasmonean king would be, from both points of view, the most acceptable method of dealing with Judaea within the Empire". According to Josephus, Claudius "also added to Agrippa's dominions all the other lands that had been ruled by King Herod, his grandfather, namely, Judaea and Samaria. He restored these lands to him 18
19
oration of Claudius. On p. 6 3 2 , Huzar observes that "at times, he [Claudius] wanders from his theme in self-centered digressions of pride, spite, or favoritism". S e e the bibliography cited by Schwartz, Agrippa I, pp. 9 0 - 9 1 , note 3. Agrippa I, pp. 9 1 - 9 3 . 1 8
1 9
29. Ant. XIX,
337
287-291
as a debt due to his belonging to the family of Herod. But he also added Abila, which had been ruled by Lysanias, and all the land in the mountainous region of Lebanon as a gift out of his own territory, and he celebrated a treaty with Agrippa in the middle of the Forum in the city of Rome (Ant. XIX, 274-275). Such generosity was not limited to Agrippa. Claudius gave similar grants to a number of vassals at the outset of his reign, , and Dio indeed mentions the enlargement of Agrippa's kingdom alongside the re-installment of three other eastern monarchs. Barret observes that "there are clear indications that when, on Claudius' accession, the Acta of Gaius were rescinded by the senate, the client-kings he had appointed found themselves in a sort of constitutional limbo, and that Claudius moved quickly to make their situation regular... while at this period the client kings depended mainly on their personal relationship with the emperor their position was, all the same, a legal and formal one, confirmed by appropriate legal and constitutional procedures". The second reason invoked by Claudius to explain why he is ready to confirm the Jewish rights is the "loyalty and friendship (of the Jews) to the Romans" (Tclaxiv K a i <|)iA,iav) (11. 8-11). Jewish apologetics? Not necessarily so. The expression is a stereotypical one, which finds parallels in numerous documents from imperial days. Augustus writes to the Sardians "I praise you ... because you are ever ambitious to show yourselves grateful to me and to all my family" (GC no. 7, 11. 2 6 - 2 7 ) . At Alexandria, a proclamation by Germanicus states "the good will (evvoia) which you ever display when you see me I accept gladly" (GC no. 17, 11. 29-31). Tiberius, too, mentions the [euoefieiav (?) K a i ] rcpoq e(i8 ovv7ca6t[av] of the Aezanitae in Phrygia, and the xfjq 7c6[A,£co<; xf]v ei<; u.e ea3]voiav (GC no. 13,11. 4 - 5 , 8-9). In a letter to the yepouoia of Ephesus, too, Tiberius mentions its 7tp6<; eun-uxov e t i v o i a ; Caligula writes to the league of the Acheans and Beotians and Locrians and Phocians and Euboeans: "I recognized that you displayed an unsurpassable [zeal] and devotion ([7ipo9\)(x]ia<; K a i evoe^eiaq) to me" (GC no. 18,1. 25). As for Claudius, he has affectionate words for the Greeks in the papyrus letter, surely warmer than those he has for the Jews: "...your ambassadors presented me with the decree and spoke at length about the city, directing my attention to your goodwill towards us, which, you may be sure, has long been stored in my memory, since it comes from your natural reverence towards the Emperors, as I know from many instances, and particularly from your devotion to my own family..." (CPJ II, no. 153, col. II, 11. 20-25). Similar expressions also appears in Claudius' letter to the Thasians: "What I replied 20
21
22
23
2 0
S e e Momigliano, Claudius pp. 6 2 - 6 2 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , note 4 4 . S e e Schwartz, Agrippa I, p. 9 2 . A . A . Barret, "Claudius, Gaius and the Client Kings", CQ, 4 0 , 1990, pp. 2 8 4 - 2 8 6 . For a different v i e w , see D . Wardle, "Caligula and the Client Kings", CQ, 4 2 , 1 9 9 2 , pp. 4 3 7 - 4 4 3 . On the role of Agrippa in Rome, see Schwartz, Agrippa I, pp. 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 . Ann.Ep. 1993, no. 1462, 12/3 CE, 1. 2 3 ; see also no. 1 4 6 3 , 1 . 33 2 1
2 2
2 3
338
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
to [all the embassies sent to me] I say to you too, namely that I approve the [verbal expressions] of [your] zeal and loyalty (anovSfjt; Kai e i K J E f t e i a c ; ) in their entirety" (GC no. 23, 42 CE, 11. 3-5), in that sent to the Guild of Roving Athletes, which mentions their rcpoq e|iaux6v e v v o i a (GC no. 28,1. 26), and in his letter to the Mytileneans, where he mentions their xav vuexepav icpoq] xov efxov OIKOV < e \ » a e P e i a v (GC no. 30,11. 3-4). The third reason mentioned by Claudius which explains his permission to all the Jews to follow their traditional customs is the fact that he confirmed Augustan policy not only in the case of the Jews but also in that of the Greeks: "I did so because I hold it right that not even Greek cities should be deprived of these privileges, seeing that they were in fact guaranteed for them in the time of the divine Augustus" (11. 11-14). Schwartz observes that "this is a case of logic to which only Jews could subscribe.... Such an argumentum a minori ad maius, which assumes that Roman defense of Jewish rights is more self-understood than is Roman defense of Greek rights is, of course, an apologetic Jewish argument". Claudius' interest in the rights of the Greeks, however, appears also in CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 5 7 - 5 9 , where Claudius addresses the Greeks, stating: "it is also my will that all privileges which were granted to you by emperors, kings, and prefects before my time shall be confirmed, in the same way that the god Augustus confirmed them". In particular, Claudius' confirmation of the directives of Augustus' policy in the preservation of local rights is attested not only by our edict and by the papyrus letter but also by a number of Greek inscriptions and papyri, which show that the rights granted by Augustus were confirmed by Claudius, in the years 4 1 - 4 3 , also to the Alexandrians (CPJ II, no. 153, col. Ill, 11. 57-59), to the Samians ("all [the privileges] which [your] ancestors [received] and which you [enjoy] up to [now, I] confirm [for you]": GC no. 20, 41 CE, 11. 11-13), to the Thasians ("I preserve for you according to the [decisions] of [the deified] Augustus all the rights you received from him in reference to what you previously had and especially to the export of grain": GC no. 23, 42 CE, 11. 7-9) and to the Dionysiac Artists ("As for the rights and privileges which have been granted to you by the deified Augustus, I maintain them": GC no. 24 A, 43 CE, 11. 7-8). In his letter to the Dionysias Artists written in 48 CE, too, Claudius states again: "That you recall what I did for you in preserving the rights granted by the Augusti who preceded me and by the senate I commend you and shall try to increase them since you are loyally disposed toward my house" (GC no. 29, 11. 5-10). Confirmation of the rights given by Augustus is a common feature of the policy implemented by Claudius. 24
25
26
2 4
2 5
2 6
For a later period, see also GC no. 284,11. 8 - 1 1 . Schwartz, Agrippa I, pp. 104—105. S e e above, p. 3 0 1 .
29. Ant. XIX,
339
287-291
On the structure of the motivation which appears in this edict, Benner observes that "the first reason is the dignity of the intercessors, the second the fides of the Jews; these reasons are personal. The third reason is the respect for justice and precedent. The composition of the motivation is based on principles similar to those which appear in the second part of CIL V, 5050 = FIRA I, 7 1 " . As for Claudius' warning to the Jews "to avail themselves of this kindness in a more reasonable spirit, and not to set at nought the beliefs about the gods held by other peoples" (11. 17-20), its meaning is clear against the background of the events which took place at Alexandria after Caligula's murder, when the Jews "took heart again and at once armed themselves" (Ant. XIX, 278), events which are possibly alluded to also in CPJ II, no. 153, col. V, 11. 9 6 - 1 0 0 . Tcherikover stresses that this passage "evidences the trustworthiness of the document". 2
2 7
28
The edict closes with an order of publication, which is a common feature in Roman edicts. In an edict of Severus Alexander remitting payment of aurum coronarium we read: "Copies of this decision of mine let the magistrates in each city take care publicly <where> they will be most easily visible to the readers". An instruction for publication also appears in an edict issued by Vespasianus: a\)TOKpd[x(op K a i o a p 0 \ ) e a 7 u a ] o i a v 6 q \ ) 7 i e y p a v | / a K a i 29
8K8X,e\)aa [ 7 c p o T 8 0 f i v a i ev ^ e j u K c o u a x i .
3 0
As for the clause concerning the
fact that the edict has to be published in such a place where it may be read from the floor, it also appears in a municipal decree from Gabii: Hoc decretum post tres relationes placuit in tabula aerea scribi et proponi in publico, unde de piano recte legi possit and in an undated one from Cales: loc[o pro]ponend. curent, u(nde) d(e) p(lano) r(ecte) l(egi) p(ossit)? In the Lex Julia Municipalis, 16, we find: "In the case of every declaration required of any person by this law, it shall be the duty of the magistrate... to see that the name of the person ... shall be entered in the public records; he shall further see that the entries made by him in the said public records shall be copied in black letters on a white board and exposed in the forum, during the 31
2
2 7
Benner, The Emperor Says, p. 106. Hellenistic Civilization, p. 4 1 3 . Scramuzza, on the other hand, sees here a hint at Jewish proselytism. "This decree", he observes, "has been universally regarded as a new charter of liberties for the Jewish communities of the diaspora. A n d such it is. But it is also a clear demarcation of h o w far their privilege may extend. T h e Jews are given full liberty to be faithful observers of their laws individually and collectively in the midst of the heathen peoples, but not the liberty to make Jews of others" ("The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors", p. 2 9 2 ) . GC no. 2 7 5 , 2 2 2 CE, col. II, 11. 2 1 - 2 3 . S e e Millar, The Emperor, p. 2 5 5 . FIRA I, no. 7 3 , 11. 1 7 - 1 9 . S e e Millar, The Emperor, pp. 2 5 4 - 5 . ILS I, no. 2 7 2 = R.K. Sherk, The Municipal Decrees of the Roman West, Buffalo 1970, no. 5 5 , 140 CE, 1. 15. Sherk, The Municipal Decrees (supra, note 3 1 ) , no. 44,11. 2 8 - 2 9 . 2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
2
340
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
greater part of every day, at the time and place in which corn is distributed to the people, so that it may be plainly read from the level of the ground". The Lex municipalis Malacitana, from Spain (82 or 83 CE), states in chapter 63: "It shall be the duty of every duumvir charged with the highest jurisdiction to lease out the public revenues and taxes ... and the lease contracts so made... he shall have ... posted up during the remainder of his magistracy, so that they may be read from level ground, in whatever place the decuriones or conscripti may determine". In the law of the municipium Irnitanum, too, instructions have to be published "in that place in which he administers justice for the greater part of the day... so that they may be properly read from ground level" (chap. 90), and in ch. 95 we read: "Any duumvir who is in charge of the administration of justice in that municipium is to see that this statute is inscribed on bronze at the earliest possible moment and affixed in the most prominent place in that municipium so that it may be properly read from ground level". And in the Lex de provinciis praetoriis we read: "The praetor [or the proconsul ? designated ?] to the province of Asia,... [is to send] letters to the peoples [and states and to the kings written down above... [And he is to see, insofar as] it is possible, that whatever letters he sends according to this statute, to whomever he sends them, that they be delivered according to [this] statute, [and that, according to the custom of those] to whom letters may be sent according to this statute, the letters, engraved on a bronze tablet, [or if not either on a marble slab or even] on a whitened board, be openly [published] in the cities [in a sanctuary] or agora, in such a way that people shall be able to read (them) [properly] from ground level". Another example is found in the Tabula Heracleensis, where we read: "and that the same things in every respect which he shall have entered in the records and as (he shall have entered) are so entered on a tablet in a list; and he is to have it published in the forum and, when corn shall be issued to the people, at the place at which corn shall be issued to the people, daily during the greater part of the day, where it may be properly read from level ground". Similarly, in the law from Tarentum we find on 1. 14: [...Quaestor ... tabulam aeneam h(ace) l(ege) inscribendam Uteris inc]isis fictamque apudforum unde de piano recte legi possitur^. The letter addressed to the OTpaTryyoi of some or all of the nomes of Egypt by the prefect of Egypt Q. Aemilius Saturninus, 33
34
35
36
37
3 3
E.G. Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters, Oxford 1912, p. 150. Hardy, Roman Laws (supra, note 33), p. 110. K.J. Gonzales, "The Lex Irnitana: a new Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law", JRS, 7 6 , 1986, pp. 197, 199. Delphi Copy, Block B, 11. 2 0 - 2 7 : Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 2 5 4 . Tabula Heracleensis, 11. 1 3 - 1 6 : Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, I, London 1996, p. 3 7 2 . A . W . Lintott, "The Roman Judiciary Law from Tarentum", ZPE, 4 5 , 1982, pp. 127-138. 3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
29. Ant. XIX,
287-291
341
too, states: "Each of you is to see to displaying in public, on a whitened board in characters that are clear and easily legible, a copy of this letter in the nome capitals and in each village" (P.Yale inv. 299, 198/9 CE, 11. 12-15), and the edict issued by Sextus Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus on requisitioned transport at Sagalassos, at the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, takes care that it would be published in singulis civitatibus et vicis (SEG XXVI, 1976, no. 1392,11. 5-6). Unless of particular importance, edicts were usually made known through a public reading. Finally, we may ask whether such a general edict was needed in the case of the Jews. Hennig argues that "there was no reason for issuing an edict concerning all the diaspora" and that "the provision that all the Jews xd Ttdxpia £0n (|)\)X,daaeiv is superfluous. No source anywhere attests that this right was ever challenged in the diaspora". Botermann, too, observes that "the existence of the Diaspora does not justify a global regulation which would be unusual for the Romans. There were no disorders in other parts of the Roman empire in Gaius' days, which would have justified a general action". This document, however, is not the only one which applies to all the provinces of the Roman empire. General pronouncements or edicts affecting all the provinces alike are attested by extant epigraphical sources. According to Millar, one such edict is preserved by the Augustan inscription from Kyme in Asia ordering the restitution of public and sacred properties in all the provinces (SEG XVIII, 1968, no. 555; XX, 1970, no. 15). Philo, too, records that after the death of Sejanus, Tiberius wrote to all the governors of the provinces to reassure the Jews about their rights (Leg. 161), and from Claudius' reign we have the edict about vehiculatio, attested in an inscription from Tegea (ILS I, no. 214, dated 49 or 50 CE), which explicitly refers to both Italy and the provinces. Other cases are attested for the reigns of Nero, Vespasian, Domitian and N e r v a . 39
40
41
42
In our case, the events which had taken place in Caligula's days, both in Judaea and at Alexandria, had clearly shown that an explicit grant to the Jews concerning the legitimacy of their cult by the emperor was absolutely necessary, in order to avoid the possibility that similar episodes could take place in the future. The Alexandrian pogrom had had implications for the Jews of the entire Empire. Clashes between Jews and Gentiles in Antioch under Gaius are reported by Malalas. "There is a good bit of imagination behind his story", Schwartz observes, "but it may be assumed that some historical event lies behind it". A clear Roman position toward the Jewish 43
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
S e e above, p. 19. Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten Bruchstiicken", pp. 3 3 3 , 3 3 4 . Botermann, Das Judenedikt, p. 111 and note 348. See Millar, "The Emperor", pp. 1 6 1 - 2 . Agrippa I, p. 9 3 , note 15.
342
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
cult was badly needed. In fact, from what happened at Dora a short time afterwards, in 41 or 4 2 CE, we see that even after the publication of Claudius' edicts the Greeks tried to repeat the events of Alexandria (see document no. 30). Claudius does not innovate. He is only giving formal expression to a policy already implemented by Augustus, who had granted the same religious freedom to the Jews of Rome, of Delos, of Alexandria and to those living in A s i a . In any case, Claudius' explict permission to follow the Jewish traditional laws and customs to all the Jews living in the Roman world was tremendously important for the Jews. "We are led to ascribe innovation to the emperor Claudius." Rajak observes, "Soon after his accession, he was evidently shaken by the pressures of those Greek-Jewish crises in both Palestine and Alexandria, which his predecessor Gaius had created and he had to resolve, to utter in his own inimitable way a general policy of toleration (if we may call it that) for Jewish observances". 44
45
Ant. X I X , 2 9 2 Josephus' Closing C o m m e n t s
292
(vi. 1) Tomoiq (o.ev 8fi xoiq Siaxdyiiaoiv eiq 'AX,e^dv8peidv xe K a i xf)v oiKovuivriv rcaoav anoaxa^eiaiv £8f|^coaev fjv rcepi 'IovSaicov e%oi yvcou/nv KA,at>8io<; Kaiaap.
Translation By these edicts which were sent to Alexandria and to the world at large Claudius Caesar showed what he had decided about the Jews. Commentary Again, we find here Josephus' wish to provide a link between the documents quoted and the next section of his narrative, which deals with the return of King Agrippa to Judaea.
4 4
S e e below, pp. 443—444. Smallwood observes that "the main purpose of this edict was clearly to circumvent any plans that might be brewing in other cities with large Jewish communities to follow the Alexandrian example and attempt to undermine their civic status or religious liberty" (The Jews, p. 2 4 7 ) . Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", p. 115. 4 5
Ant. X I X , 3 0 0 - 3 0 2 Josephus' Introductory C o m m e n t s
(vi. 3) rcavxaTuaoiv 8e oMyou Xpovoi) 8i£^96vxo<; Acopixai v e a v i a K o i xf\q ooioxnxoc; 7tpoxi9ep.£voi x6X,|xav Kai nE^UKoxeq E i v a i rcapaP6A,to<; 9paaei<; Kaicapoq d v 8 p i d v x a Kouioavxec; ei<;
301
302
303
xf)v xcov 'Iou8aicov auvaycoyfiv dveoxnaav. a(()68pa xovjxo 'AypiTutav Txapco^vvev KaxdA,uoiv yap xcov rcaxpicov auxoi) v6|a.cov e8\)vaxo. d|ieA.X,r|xi 8e 7tp6<; Ilov)7iX,iov riexpcoviov, fiy£|icbv 8e xfj<; Zvpiac, omoq f|v, napayivexai Kai Kaxa^eyei xcov Acopixcov. 6 8' oi>x T|xxov e m xco 7cpa%9£vxi %a?i£7rr|va<;, Kai yap avxoq £Kptv£v dcEfteiav xf|v xcov EVVOJICOV 7tapd(3aaiv, xoiq £7t:iGxaat xcov Acopixcov oi)v opyfj xafjx' £ypa\|/£v. 1 0 - 1 2 . K a i y a p ... T t a p d p a a i v om. E. 12. ertiaxaoi coni. Feldman. d T t o a x c t o i codd.: indisciplinatis Lat.: TcpoeoTC&oi coni. N i e s e .
Translation A very short time after this, certain y o u n g m e n o f Dora, w h o set a higher v a l u e o n audacity than o n h o l i n e s s and w e r e by nature r e c k l e s s l y bold, brought an i m a g e o f Caesar into the s y n a g o g u e o f the Jews and set it up. This p r o v o k e d Agrippa e x c e e d i n g l y , for it w a s tantamount to an overthrow of the l a w s of his fathers. Without delay h e w e n t to s e e Publius Petronius, the g o v e r n o r of Syria, and d e n o u n c e d the p e o p l e o f Dora. Petronius w a s n o less angry at the d e e d , for h e t o o regarded the breach o f l a w as sacrilege. He wrote in anger to the leaders of Dora as f o l l o w s .
Commentary Josephus informs us of the e v e n t s w h i c h had taken place in 41 or 42 CE at Dora, a small city in Phoenicia, s o m e w h a t north o f the m o d e r n v i l l a g e of Tantura, near Mount Carmel, c l o s e to Jewish territory and formerly under Hasmonean rule. Here the Greeks had introduced a statue of Claudius in a 1
1
S e e Loeb ed., IX, p. 3 5 7 , note e.
344
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
Jewish synagogue, a deed which constituted a breach of Jewish law. Their intention may have been that of repeating the events which had taken place at Alexandria a few years before. The danger of disorders was immediate: King Agrippa denounced the act to the governor of Syria, Petronius, who proceeded to issue the document which Josephus quotes afterwards. The details which Josephus gives us may have been taken from the document itself and do not imply the existence of an additional source. Petronius, Josephus alleges, was "angry at the deed" no less than Agrippa, and this interpretation of Josephus is borne out by the tone of Petronius' message to the Dorians, which is very tense. Petronius knew well what the introduction of a statue in a synagogue meant for the Jews; the events which had taken place in Caligula's days had shown it clearly (see Ant. VIII, 261-288; 302-305). He therefore tried his best to avoid further unrest, the limits of which, he knew by experience, were impossible to predict. That is why after the quotation of the document, Josephus concludes that "such were the precautions taken by Petronius to rectify the breach of law that had already occurred and to prevent any similar offence against the Jews" (par. 312).
30. Ant. X I X , 3 0 3 - 3 1 1 B e t w e e n the Summer of 41 and 4 2 C E
Document issued by Publius Petronius, governor of Syria, after the Greeks' infringement of Jewish law which had taken place at Dora. Petronius confirms Claudius' permission to the Jews to live according to the customs of their fathers. Bibliography V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Philadelphia 1959, p. 306; A . N . Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome, Cambridge 1970, pp. 9 3 - 9 4 ; M. Stern, "Die Urkunden", in: Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums, ed. J. Maier, J. Schreiner, Wiirzburg 1973 = "The Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple" (Hebr.), in: The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar Kochva, Tel A v i v 1980, p. 376; D. Hennig, "Zu neuveroffentlichten BruchstUcken der 'Acta Alexandrinorum', Chiron, 5, 1975, p. 3 3 4 ; E. Mary S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 1 9 5 - 1 9 6 ; A. Kasher, "Introduction" (Hebr.), in: The Great Revolt, ed. A. Kasher, Jerusalem 1983, p. 6 3 , note 177; Tessa Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?", JRS, 7 4 , 1984, p. 115; A. Kasher,
30. Ant. XIX,
345
303-311
The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Tubingen 1985, pp. 2 6 4 - 2 6 9 ; D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Tubingen 1990, p. 107.
303 304
305
306
(vi. 3) noTJTcAAOc; riexpcovioc; TcpeaPemfii; Tiftepiou KAxruSiou Kaioapo^EePaoxoi) repuaviKoD Acopiecov xoiq rcpcoxou; Xeyei. e7uei8f| xooauxri x6X\ir\ djcovoiaq xiveq e%pf|cavxo e ^ TJUXOV, coaxe ur|Se 8 i d TO TcpoxeGfjvai Sidxayua KA,a\)8iov Kaiaapoc; Ze(3aaxo\) repuaviKot) rcepi xov e^ieoGai Ioi)8aiot><; (j)\)A.doaeiv i d T c d x p i a TueioGfjvai v\iaq avxdb, xdvavxia 8e T t d v x a Tcpd^at, cruvaycoynv 'IouSaicov KCOXvovxaq e i v a i Sid xo uexaGelvai ev amfj xov Kaioapo<; dvSpidvxa, T c a p a v o u o u v x a t ; OVK eiq uovoix; 'Iou5aiov<;, aXXa K a i ei<; xov a v x o K p d x o p a , ov 6 dv8pid<; fieXxwv ev xcp iSicp vacp f| ev dAAmpicp exiGexo Kai xaDxa ev xcp xfj<; G u v a y c o y f j q XOTCCO, XOV (jruoei 8iKaio\)vxo<; e v a eKaoxov xcov i8icov xdrccov -
xo Kaiaapoi; e7U.Kpiu.a xov yap E\IOV e r c i K p i i i a x o c ; uiuvf|0"Keo"6ai yeX.oiov e o x i v u e x d xo xov a\)xoKpdxopo<; 8idxay|ia xov emxpevi/avxoc; 'Iou5aioi<; xoiq i8ioi<; eGeai xpfjaGai, exi u.evxoi ye Kai ovuTioAaxe'ueaGai xoiq "EXkr\civ KeKeA,e\)Koxo<; xovq u e v rcapd xo Sidxayua xoij E e p a o x o u x o i a i k a xexo?iur|K6xa<;, ety' cp Kai avxoi TjyavaKXTioav oi 8oKO\3vxe<; atixcov e^e^eiv ov xfj iSia rcpoaipeaei yeyevfjaGai Xeyovxeq aXXa xfj xov nXr\Qovq opufj, vnb eKaxovxdp%oi) npoKA,ov 0\)ixeX.?iio\) eKeTieuoa in e u e dva^Gfjvai xcov TceTcpayuevcov X,dyov drcoScoGOvxac;, xoi<; 8e rcpcoxon; dpxouoi rcapaivco, e i uf) fk>t>?iovxai SOKCIV Kaxd xf|v ai)xcov rcpoaipeaiv yeyevfjaGai xo dSiKruaa, emSei^ai xoix; aixiovc; xcp eKaxovxdp%T) ur|8euia<; oxdaeax; ur|8e (i.d%ri<; ecovxa<; d(|)opuf]v yeveaGai, fivTcep SoKofJciv uoi GripeveaGai Kupieveiv
Kaxd
5
10
15
-
307
308
2-3. Acopiecov A : Atopiatcov MW: yp Acopixwv in marg. A. 5. TO S i d x a y u a M W . 12. ti e v dAAoxpicp. quam in debito loco Lat. 1 3 - 1 4 . xov tyvoei SiKaiovvxoq. xfj (Jnjcei 8 i K a i o v dvxoq Hudson.
21.
eiq xi\v 'Ioi>8ala>v auvaycoynv jiexaxeOeiKOxaq xov
22.
e^e%eiv E et in marg. A: e^eicetvoi) A: e^eA,eiv MW; oi
d v 8 p i d v x a post t e t o J i u t i k o t o k ; add. E. SoKovvteq avxcov e ^ e x e i v : eorum iudices Lat. 24. OmxeAAlov M: OmxeXio'u A W : Omxevioi) E. 2 5 - 2 6 . 7tapavo|j.oiJvxa<; OVK ei<; novotx; 'IouSaiorx;, aXXa Kai
etc; xov auxoKpdxopa post dTco8c6oovxa<; add. E.
20
25
30
346
//. The Documents
309
310
311
Quoted
by
Josephus
5id xcov xoiouxcov epycov, Kduou Kai xofj xiuacoxdxov uoi Paai?ieco(; 'AypircTiou OUSEVOC; uxxAAov rcpovoouuevcov, f| i v a u.f| d(|)op|Lifj<; 8pa^dp.evoi xo xcov 'Ioi)8aicov £Gvo<; vno xf\q du/uvng npoty&Gei c u v aGpoioGev eiq drcovoiav x^Ptl- ^ yvcopiLicoxepov rj, xi Kai 6 Eepaaxoq 7 t e p i oXov xov 7ipdy|iaxoq £<j)povrio8, xd ev 'AA,8^av8peig ai)xo\) 8 i a x a y u m a 7cpoxeGevxa 7cpoa£6r|Ka, drcep e i Kai yvcopijia Ttdciv e l v a i 8oK£i, xoxe Kai £ 7 i i xoij Pfjjxaxo<; dvEyvco 6
35
xiLiicoxaxoq uoi
40
v a
fiaGikevc,
'Aypi7C7taq 8iKaioA,oyr|-
od|i£vo<; 7i£pi xo-0 ^if| 8 £ i v auxoix; d(|)aip£Gfivai xfjq xox> EEPaoxoiJ ScopEdq. eiq XE OVV XO Xoinov 7 c a p a y yeXXca (ir|8£Liiav rcpo^aaiv oxdoEcoq p.r|8£ xapaxfjc; c^r|X£iv, dAA,' £Kdaxo\)<; xd I8ia EGTI GpriaKE-UEiv. 32. fjxxov E. 34. IJTCO xf\q d(J.i)VT|<; npo(|)doei. iJTcep Tf|<; du.TJVT|(; rcpo^daei d|ai)vri<;7cpo(|)doei Dindorf: IJTCO xfjq duuvrn; rcpo^daeax; ed.pr. 38. Tcpoae6r|Ka ed. pr.: Tcpoe8r|Ka codd.: praeposui Lat.
Translation Publius Petronius, legate of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, to the leading men of Dora proclaims: Inasmuch as certain of you have had such mad audacity, notwithstanding the issuance of an edict of Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus pertaining to the permission granted the Jews to observe the customs o f their fathers, not to obey this edict, but to do the very reverse, in that you have prevented the Jews from having a synagogue by transferring to it an image o f Caesar, you have thereby sinned not only against the law of the Jews, but also against the emperor, whose image was better placed in his own shrine than in that of another, especially in the synagogue; for by natural law each must be lord over his own place, in accordance with Caesar's decree. For it is ridiculous for me to refer to my own decree after making mention o f the edict of the emperor which permits Jews to follow their own customs, yet also, be it noted, bids them to live as fellow citizens with the Greeks. As for those who have, in defiance o f the edict of the Augustus, been s o rash as to act thus — at which deed even those who are regarded as eminent among the transgressors are indignant and assert that it was done not because anyone deliberately and personally proposed it, but by an impulse of the mob — I have given orders that they are to be brought before me by Proclus Vitellius the centurion to give an account of their actions. To the ranking magistrates I give this warning: that, unless they wish to have it thought that the wrong was committed with their consent and intent, they must point out the guilty parties to the centurion, allowing n o
30. Ant. XIX,
303-311
347
occasion to occur that could lead to strife or battle. For this, in my opinion, is precisely what they hope to achieve by such actions. For both King Agrippa, my most honored friend, and I have no greater interest than that the Jews should not seize any occasion, under the pretext of self-defence, to gather in one place and proceed to acts of madness. And, that you may be better informed of His Imperial Majesty's policy concerning the whole matter, I have appended his edicts which were published at Alexandria. Although they seem to be universally known, my most honored friend King Agrippa read them before my tribunal at the time when he pleaded that the Jews ought not to be despoiled of the privileges granted by the Augustus. For the future, therefore, I charge you to seek no pretext for sedition or disturbance, but to practise severally each his own customs. 1
1
This is the translation given by Schwartz (King Agrippa translates "desperate measures" (Loeb ed., IX, p. 3 6 1 ) .
I, p. 181, note 7). Feldman
Commentary 1. Publius Petronius, probably grandson of a prefect of Egypt, was augur from 7 CE and suffect consul in 19 with M.Iunius Silanus. He was proconsul of Asia from 29 to 35 (?) and succeeded Vitellius as legatus of Syria in 39 or 40 CE, where he remained in office untill 4 1 - 4 2 CE. See R. Hanslik, "P.Petronius P.f.", RE, I, 37, 1937, no. 24, coll. 1199-1201 and E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, Edinburgh 1973, p. 263. His responsible conduct and his understanding of the Jews' attachment to their laws in Caligula's times is stressed by Josephus in Ant. XVIII, 261-288, 302-305. 2 - 3 . Tcpeaftemric; is the standard equivalent for legatus in all its senses. See H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974, p. 153. The same title is given to Petronius also in Ant. XVIII, 261. 3. TOU; Tcpt6xoi<;. The messages of official Roman governors are always directed to the governing classes, on the collaboration of which they based their governorship in the provinces. 1-3. The opening is strange, bearing the characteristics both of a letter, with the name of the addressee, and of an edict, which opens with ^eyei. See below, pp. 351-352. 3. £7cei8r| usually introduces the historical background which prompted decrees and edicts in official Roman documents. 4. The cxTc6voia of the Jews is mentioned below, on 1. 35. The same term appears also in document no. 28, 1. 21 referring to Caligula. 4. The words xiveq... et, i)\i(bv make it clear that the accusations of Petronius are directed toward a few. The responsibility, however, is made to fall on the whole Greek community of Dora, which is warned not to allow similar acts to happen again in the future. See below, 11. 2 6 - 3 0 .
348
//. The Documents
Quoted by
Josephus
5 - 6 . The verb 7r,poxi6rnii, along with £Kxi9n|u, is the technical one used to denote publication of official documents (see CPJ II, no. 153, col. 1,1. 6). On the possible identification of the Sidxayuxx of Claudius mentioned here, see below, p. 354. 7. c|nA,doo"£iv i d rcaxpia. This expression closely echoes document no. 29, where we find i d ... SiKcxia ... (jnAdaaeaGca (11. 5-7) and xd 7cdxpia £ 0 n . . . (J)\)A,daa£iv (11. 15-16). 8. On the terms o"uvaycoyf| and 7tpoo£-uxf|, see document no. 19, commentary to 11. 14-15. How many synagogues existed at Dora we do not know, but it is doubtful whether the singular xfjv ovvaytoynv means "the chief synagogue", as Smallwood suggests (The Jews, p. 196, note 58), and not "the one and only". 11-13. Tcherikover stresses that "this is the only case in which we find a trace of the exemption of the Jews from the worship of the divine Caesar in an official document, but this emphasis had a special reason connected with contemporary events" (Hellenistic Civilization, p. 306). We know that Claudius was very wary of the cult of his person. In his letter to the Alexandrians, for example, he states: "I have gladly received the honors you have given me, although I have no great taste for such things.... But the establishment of a high-priest and temples of myself I decline, not wishing to be offensive to my contemporaries and in the belief that temples and the like have been set apart in all ages for the gods alone" (CPJ II, no. 153, col. II, 11. 28-37; col. Ill, 11. 51). To the Thasians, too, Claudius writes: "I decline the temple, which, I judge, [is] for the gods alone, though I accept the other honors which are suitable for excellent princes (GC no. 23, 42 CE, 11. 5-7). On Roman discouragment of divine honors since the republican era, see below, pp. 476-477. An inscription from Thasos, however, applies the epithet Qeoq to Claudius (E. Mary Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero, Cambridge 1967, no. 133), and a temple dedicated to Claudius was erected in Britain at Camulodunum ( T a c , Ann. XIV, 31). See Kasher, The Jews, p. 266, note 9. %
13. On the meaning of the term auvaycoyfi, see above, commentary to 1. 8. 13-15. The principle that "each people is entitled to enjoy its own rights" is taken by Petronius from the edict of Claudius (Kaxd xo Kataapoq entKpina). In fact, in the edict sent "to the rest of the world", Claudius writes: "I hold it right that not even Greek cities should be deprived of these privileges..." (document no. 29, 11. 11-13). On Claudius' confirmation of rights also to the Samians, to the Thasians, and to the Dionysiac Artists, see above, pp. 325-326. £7UKpi|j.a translates the Latin decretum (see RDGE nos. 28 A, 1. 25; 28 B, 1. 4; 50, 1. 1; 54, 1. 3). Sometimes it is used as a title, as in the case of the £7iiKpi(xa 7U£pl xfjq aovXiaq preserved in RDGE no. 55,1. 2. On its use in the Augustan edicts, see the bibliography indicated by Sherk, RDGE, p. 16. 15-16. If Petronius is referring here to his present message to the leaders
30. Ant. XIX,
303-311
349
of Dora, from the fact that he calls it an ETciKpiua we may deduce that his was meant to be an edict, in spite of the fact that it has an addressee. The two words 87ciKpi(xa and Sidxayuxx are apparently used interchangibly. 16. On yeA,oiov, which is rather uncommon in official documents, see below, p. 352. 17-18. On the identification of this Sidxayuce, see below, p. 354. 18-19. On the meaning of av\moXixeveaQai here, and on the view of this passage offered by scholars, see below, pp. 354-355. 2 1 - 2 3 . These words make it clear that Petronius had already had contacts with the people of Dora before he wrote this document. 24. As far as I kno,w, the historical identification of Proclus Vitellius is unknown. 24-26. If the persons responsible for the deed had not yet been brought before Petronius, this means that this document was written in medias res, and this may well explain its agitated tone. 26. The verb Tcapcxivto, along with KeTie-uco which appears on 1. 24, are commonly used in edicts issued by Roman commanders, by prefects and emperors. See above, pp. 19-21. 28. This is one of the few instances in which an infringment of Jewish rights by the Greeks is called an d8iKr|ua by a Roman authority, and in which the leaders are requested in strong terms to deliver the responsible persons to the Romans. The difference between this and what had taken place at Alexandria at the time of Flaccus is striking. As for the term d8iKTi|ia, it often appears in Roman official documents. See loca citata in RDGE, p. 369. 2 8 - 2 9 . The term £Kaxovxdpxr|<; translates the Latin centurio. See H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974, p. 163. 2 9 - 3 0 . These words, along with 11. 33-35 below, explain what was the preoccupation of Petronius, and attest to the tense atmosphere still prevailing in Greek-Jewish settelements in Judaea at the beginning of Claudius' reign. 31-32. Agrippa, grandson of Herod and Mariamne, had a major role in the appointment of Claudius as emperor, and was made king of Judaea by him in the same year 41. His friendship with Claudius is mentioned also in document no. 29, 11. 3 - 9 . See above, pp. 336-337. He is called xiuicoxaxoc;, "most honored", also below, on 1. 40. 3 2 - 3 3 . In RDGE no. 65 D, 1. 64, we find Tcpovofjaai... orcox;. 35. Schwartz observes that Feldman renders "desperate measures", but Schalit's Hebrew translation tynu, which means "(acts of) madness" seems more appropriate. "Petronius means that the Jews should not find any pretext for mad acts, not that they should not be forced to commit desperate acts" {King Agrippa I, p. 181, note 7. See also pp. 181-182 on the use of the term djcovoia in Jewish sources). Petronius was acquainted with the djcovoia of the Jewish people since the events which had taken place in Judaea at the time of Caligula. According to Josephus, the Jews who approached Petronius
350
//. The Documents
Quoted
by
Josephus
at Ptolemais trying to make him change his mind concerning Caligula's order of erecting his statue in the Temple told him that "it is not possible for us to survive and to behold actions that are forbidden us by the decision both of our lawgiver and of our forefathers..." (Ant. XVIII, 264). Josephus tells us that at Tiberias, too, the Jews "though they regarded the risk involved in war with the Romans as great, yet adjudged the risk of transgressing the Law to be far greater" and told Petronius that they "will die sooner than violate our laws". Josephus adds that "falling on their faces and baring their throats, they declared that they were ready to be slain. They continued to make these supplications for forty days. Furthermore, they neglected their fields, and that, too, though it was time to sow the seed. For they showed a stubborn determination and readiness to die rather than to see the image erected". Josephus has Aristobulus approach Petronius and point out to him that, "since the land was unsown, there would be a harvest of banditry, because the requirement of tribute could not be met" (Ant. XVIII, 270-274). On the role of Petronius in the events at the time of Caligula and on the sources used by Josephus in Ant. XVIII, 256-309, see Schwartz, Agrippa I, pp. 18-23, and pp. 7 7 - 8 9 on Gaius' attempt to erect his statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. On this last matter, see also P. Bilde, "The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)'s Attempt to Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem", Studia Theologica, 32, 1978, pp. 67-93; G. Firpo, "II tentativo di Caligola di profanare il Tempio di Gerusalemme e la datazione di IV Maccabei", QIASA, 4, 1988, pp. 1-23. 3 5 - 3 6 . May we believe that the Greeks of Dora were not yet informed of the change of the directives of Roman policy which had taken place after Caligula's murder? 37. The plural form of the word Sidxayua suggest that at least two edicts issued by Claudius are referred to here. As for their identification, see below, p. 354. 39-40. These words make it clear that King Agrippa had approached Petronius and had perorated the case of the Jews before his tribunal. See Kasher, The Jews, p. 268, note 14. The pfju.a of the Roman governor in the provinces is mentioned also in documents nos. 10, 1. 3, and 16, 1. 16, See commentary ad locum. A l - 4 2 The choice of the term Scoped to express Claudius' grants to the Jews is highly meaningful, since it shows that, in spite of the fact that the Jews had been accorded the right to follow their traditional customs already by Julius Caesar and then by Augustus, this right is still regarded by Petronius as "a privilege", which consequently can be revoked any time. See below, pp. 4 4 7 - 4 4 9 . 42—44. Petronius' invitation to avoid any pretext for axaoiq and Tapa%f|, introduced by the verb TtapaYyeAAco, repeats what appears on 11. 29, where Petronius asks the leaders of Dora to allow no occasion for oxaoiq and ud%r|.
30. Ant. XIX,
351
303-311
44. The last phrase, which invites both Greeks and Jews to respect each other's cult in peace, echoes the end 