Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius

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\|/axoKpdxopaiv avxcov xiudq Kai cruu|iaxia?tioD YV(6UT| yevovoxoc; 7C£pi... (RDGE no. 54, 1. 3), which closely resembles his letter to the magistrates of Sidon: xfjq y£vo|i£vr|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'e0voq vouxnc; xe Kai e 0 e a i v Kai 8iKaioi 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,evouiov Kai 7tai8ato 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 TcpcoxoKIOC; 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 . AOIJKIOu|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\maxoq

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|picovov 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|8aio\)p 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>8io8ala>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£O"0ai xotG0ai, meaning "enjoying civic rights", however, is extremely doubtful. In this case, he would probably have said something more, and something more precise. The phrase TO XOV ai)xoKpdxopoA,o|iai) that...". 1

2

As for the senatus consulta, most of them are quoted fragmentarily, but one instance is found — the senatus consultum issued on the initiative of Marcus Antonius and Publius Dolabella after Caesar's death (no. 8) — which adheres to the standard form appearing in the inscriptions. The opening clause which 1

On the possible reasons, see b e l o w , pp. 4 0 7 ^ 0 8 .

2

S e e above, pp.

43-41.

///.

358

Conclusions

precedes the prescript, the prescript with the date, the place, the mention of the witnesses and their very number, are in full accordance with the standard form of prescripts found in the decrees written in the republican period. In the theme, too, we find the standard formula rcepi TOTJXCOV d p e o K e i fi|itv. We do not find here the additional mark of approval, but we should remember that it is also missing in many decrees preserved by extant inscriptions. We also notice that the plausibility of the content is borne out by contemporary Latin sources, and many of the witnesses mentioned are identifiable with Roman senators known from independent Roman sources. Also the decrees issued by the council of Greek cities found in the Antiquities follows the standard form appearing in inscriptions, in spite of the fact that they are often quoted fragmentarily. There are usually two parts. The first one includes the prescript, with the name of the magistrate/s, the date, the type of meeting, the sponsor and the reasons which prompted the decree. In the second part we find the enactment formula, "resolved by the council and the people", followed by the decision and its provisions. As for the letters written by Roman officials which appear in the fourteenth and in the sixteenth books of the Antiquities, the opening is the usual one, containing the "salutation", with the name of the sender in nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative, followed by the word "greetings". The content is more difficult to define, since the reasons which prompted the writing of the letters obviously varied from case to case, so that it is difficult to define a standard model to which the letters cited by 'Josephus should conform. The imperial edicts dealing with Jewish rights quoted by Josephus are three: one issued by Augustus (no. 2 2 ) and two by Claudius (nos. 2 8 , 2 9 ) . All of them follow the pattern of the imperial edicts which are preserved by inscriptions and papyri. They begin with the name of the emperor, followed by his official titles at the time, and the verb "says" (Xeyei), in the present tense. Then the reasons which promped the edict are given, namely, the historical background (the so-called narratio or expositio), and the decision itself, introduced by the formula "it has been decided by me and my council under oath, with the consent of the Roman people that" (no. 2 2 , 11. 7 - 8 ) or alternatively "I want" (Poi)A,o|xai) (no. 2 8 , 1 . 2 4 ) , or KCXX.CO8aicov dp%£iot> in Alexandria. Jewish archives are attested also for later times. An inscription from Hierapolis, in Phrygia, written in the second or third century CE, deals with the right of a certain Aurelia Augusta to be buried in a sarcophagus and on a piece of land specially bought for this purpose. A copy of this document, the text informs us, was deposited EV xco dpxeico xcov IouSaicov. 54

55

56

Local archives of the diaspora may well have been the place from which Josephus got most of his documents. How the documents arrived from these archives into Josephus' hands it is impossible to say, but their fragmentary state, the corruptions, the mistakes and the lack of order suggest that the way between the original copies and Josephus' texts had been long.

c. How Did the Documents Reach

Josephus?

A number of possibilities may be suggested. Josephus might have had his documents directly from the Jewish archives, either by a personal consultation or through the help of Josephus' friends living in those communities. It is also not impossible that Josephus could have found his documents in the archives of the Jewish community of Rome itself, the city where he spent twenty years of his life, most probably on good terms with his fellow J e w s . 57

58

5 4

See Rajak, "Was There a Roman Charter?", (supra, note 2), pp. 1 2 0 - 1 2 3 . Willrich, Urkundenfdlschung (supra, note 5), p. 4. CPJ II, no. 143, 11. 7 - 8 ; CI J II, no. 7 7 5 . Other sources are quoted by 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 75. Of course, public archives existed also at Jerusalem. See Bell. II, 4 2 7 and VI, 354. A s I suggested in my essay "Roman Documents in Josephus' Antiquities: What Was Josephus' Source?", SCI, 13, 1994, pp. 5 7 - 5 8 . Concerning Josephus' life in R o m e , see M. Goodman, "Josephus as Roman Citizen", Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente, J. Sievers, Leiden 1994, pp. 3 2 9 - 3 3 8 . 5 5

5 6

5 7

5 8

406

//. The Problem

of Josephus'

Sources

We may, however, wonder whether Josephus personally took the initiative of collecting his documents. It was not usual for an ancient historian to consult archives. All that we know about ancient times suggests that a direct consultation of documents in archives was extremely rare. An additional possibility, however, exists, and it is a kind of compromise between the theory of Josephus' dependence on a literary source, which was the normal practice at his time, and the provenance from diaspora archives which seems borne out by the documents themselves. In the archives of the Jewish diaspora, the documents may have been copied by an anonymous compiler, who inserted them in a literary collection made with apologetic purposes. This possibility has been suggested to me by Prof. Tessa Rajak. Laqueuer rejects this possibility because he does not believe that such an anthology lacking comments could exist: "Ritschl shows that Josephus inserted his documents with no relation to his historical narrative, which means that his source was probably not an historical composition including documents. Otherwise, Josephus would have quoted them integrated with his historical narrative. In fact, Josephus tried very hard to give introductions and comments to his documents. What literary piece of work could have included documents without any historical context? There is no such thing. The book in antiquity had a literary task which was not fulfilled by an unconnected compilation of documents. Bare documents could be found only in the archives". But this is not true. Literary compilations of juridical material did exist, in both the Hellenistic and Roman periods, as Prof. Modrzejewski was kind enough to point out to me. The best known examples of this kind of literature are, for the Ptolemaic period, the Alexandrian 5iKaic6(j,axa and, for the Roman period, collections of imperial constitutions and prefectoral edicts concerning specific matters, as for instance the Longi Temporis Praescriptio. These collections, which seem to be good copies of existing authentic material, contain fragments of normative dispositions concerning a determined matter, and clearly had specific practical aims. The intervention of the author of the collection was apparently limited to the choice of the t e x t s . 59

60

61

62

63

64

5 9

S e e above, p. 3 9 8 . That w a s in the course of a most interesting and stimulating conversation, of which I harbor an extremely pleasant memory, at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in the summer of 1996. I wish to thank both her and Prof. Joseph Meleze Modrzejewski, w h o also participated, for their help in finding new possible solutions to the problems inherent in Josephus' documents. Laqueur, Der Judische historiker (supra, note 7 ) , pp. 2 2 6 - 2 2 7 . Papyrus Halensis no. 1, from the III Century BCE. BGU I, no. 2 6 7 and Papyrus Strasb. I, no. 2 2 . Both texts have been reprinted in Les lois des Romains, eds. P.F. Girard, F. Senn, I, Napoli 1977, no. C VIII/18, pp. 4 6 4 - 4 6 7 . I wish to thank most deeply Prof. Joseph M e l e z e Modrzejewski w h o has given to m e both these data and the bibliographical references. 6 0

6 1

6 2

6 3

6 4

2.

Archives

407

It is surely not impossible that a compilation of documents concerning the Jews was made in Hasmonean days, and was then integrated with documents from Herod's time, as Motzo suggests. Whether an original compilation made in Judaea was then later augmented with documents coming from the diaspora, or whether more than one such compilation existed, is of course impossible to establish. In any case, it is clear that a compilation of this kind would surely have been extremely useful whenever a dispute (of the kind often attested by literary sources) arose between Jews and Greeks concerning Jewish rights and, notably, duties. Josephus' use of a collection of this kind would fit well the habits of ancient historians known to us, namely, the fact that very seldom did they consult in the archives the original text of the documents they used, being usually content with the secondary literary sources which mentioned t h e m . The fragmentary state of many of the documents quoted by Josephus would confirm this possibility, since this kind of collection often quoted fragmentary documents. This suggestion also helps us to understand the lack of order among the documents themselves. If Josephus found only documents and fragments of documents, one after the other, with no literary and historical context, it is clear that he had to provide links and comments by himself, which was certainly by no means an easy task. As for the origin of the fragmentariness of the documents in the literary collection, it could have depended upon the personal criteria of choice of the collector himself. But it may be also due to accidental reasons. It is possible, for example, that Jewish archives were poorly organized, and functioned more as storage places than as real archives. In this case, documents and fragments of documents of different kinds, written at different times, could have been deposited together without clear indication of their nature and date. From the fragmentary state in which the documents from Caesar's time are quoted in Josephus' Antiquities we also may speculate that sections of the same document might have been deposited in the archive as if they were separate documents. As for the possible reasons for this fact, we may imagine that the original Greek copies of the documents could have been copied only in part, each preserving what was considered the main point by the person who copied it. The same document could then have been copied a number of times by different hands, in different places, at different times and with different purposes. Tessa Rajak observes that "the spread is evidently dictated 65

66

6 5

See above, note 14. See Sherk, RDGE, pp. 5 - 6 , notes 5 and 6. Culham, too, observes that " R o m a n s . . . lacked modern archival concepts such as retrieval, providing an original text and serving the public. Neither the aerarium nor the tabularium functioned successfully as a public archive during the Republic, nor were they originally intended to serve that purpose. Private archives and posted documents were often preferred in the controlling and dissemination of information" (Culham, "Archives and Alternatives" [supra, note 3 1 ] , pp. 1 0 0 - 1 1 5 ) . 6 6

408

//. The Problem

of Josephus'

Sources

by the active efforts of Jews to export advantageous decrees from one place to another; and by the normal process in the empire whereby interested parties sought and received copies of material which could be relevant to decisions made by them.... Communities were evidently interested in decisions reached elsewhere, and used them for their own purposes". It is therefore not impossible that different fragments of the same decree were deposited in different communities, and from there they could have reached the Jewish archives, where they were then found by the anonymous collector. If there were no clear signs of identification, it would surely have been very difficult to put the texts in their correct chronological order. This may well account for the lack of order, and explain why, for example, document no. 5, a part of the decree passed in 47 BCE, is quoted between two fragments of a decree passed in 44 BCE (documents no. 4 and no. 6). It could also explain why different parts of one and the same decree are quoted as if they were separate documents, as happens in the case of documents nos. 1,2 and 5. From the time in which Caesar's decrees were written, 47 BCE, to that in which Josephus lived and wrote, the 90's CE, almost one hundred and forty years had elapsed, a long time, which can account for the corruptions, the occasional mistakes, and the fragmentary form of the documents as they appear in Josephus' Antiquities. 67

6 7

Rajak, "Jewish Rights" (supra, note 20), pp. 2 5 - 2 6 .

III. The Right to Follow Jewish Customs and Laws 1. From the Persian Period to the B e g i n n i n g of R o m a n Rule From Ezra 7:25-26 we learn that as early as the Persian period, the Torah was recognized as the local official law of the Jews. At the same time, Egyptian law, too, was recognized as the official law of the Egyptians. From an Egyptian text of the Ptolemaic period, preserved on the verso of a papyrus known as the Demotic Chronicle, apparently written toward the end of the third century BCE, we learn that in the third year of his reign (419 BCE) Darius ordered the satrap of Egypt to establish a committee of wise men selected from the Egyptian warriors, priests and scribes "in order to write down the law of Egypt which had formerly been valid until the forty-fourth year of Amasis". Since Amasis reigned for precisely forty-four years (470-426 BCE), this means that Darius' initiative apparently had the goal of codifying all Egyptian law prior to the Persian conquest. The text is said to have been composed in two versions, in Aramaic and in Demotic. This codified law was introduced as the provincial law of Egypt and an Aramaic copy of the code was delivered to the Persian authorities. Its substance might have survived the Macedonian conquest in the Egyptian priestly Case-Book. This means that in Hellenistic times, too, local laws were accorded official recognition in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. 1

2

3

In the case of the Jews, Josephus has Alexander granting the High Priest and the Jews the right "to observe their country's laws" (Ant. XI, 3 3 8 ) , and the letter of Antiochus III to Ptolemy quoted by Josephus grants to the Jewish people "to have a form of government in accordance with the laws of their 4

1

P.Par.Dem. 215 verso, col. C, 11. 8 - 1 6 = Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World, ed. J.M. Geller, H. Maehler, A . D . E . L e w i s , London 1995, no. 4, pp. 14—15. On the religious tolerance of the Achemenides, apparently part of a vast political program, see G. Firpo, "Impero universale e politica religiosa. Ancora sulla distruzione dei templi greci ad opera dei Persiani", ASNP, 16, 1986, pp. 3 3 1 - 3 9 3 . G. Widengren, "The Persian Period", in: Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J.H. Hayes, J.M. Miller, London 1977, p. 5 1 4 and J. M e l e z e Modrzejewski, "Law and Justice in Ptolemaic Egypt", in: Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World (supra, note 1), p. 3. See also idem, The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (transl. by R. Cornman), Philadelphia-Jerusalem 1995, p. 104. J. M e l e z e Modrzejewski, "Livres sacres et justice lagide", in: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Juridica 21 (Symbolae C. Kunderewicz), ed. J. Kodrebski, Lodz 1986, pp. 11^44 and idem, "Law and Justice" (supra, note 2), pp. 1 1 - 1 9 , spec. pp. 7, 10. See Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt (supra, note 2), p. 5 0 . 2

3

4

410

///.

The Right to Follow Jewish

Customs

and

Laws

country" (Ant. XII, 1 4 2 ) . As for the plural form, vojioi, which appears here instead of the single one, vouo?u)|iai: n o . 1, 11. 8, 2 2 ; n o . 9 , 1. 15; no. 1 1 , 1 . 8; n o . 1 8 , 1 . 10; n o . 1 9 , 1. 12; no. 2 4 , 1 1 . 4 , 7; n o . 2 7 , 1 . 1 1 ; n o . 2 8 , 11. 16, 2 4 ; n o . 2 9 , 1 . 2 4 ; no. 3 0 , 1. 2 7

yeXoloq: no. 3 0 , 1 . 16 yr\: n o . 5 , 1 . 2 3 y i y v o p m : n o . 1,11. 2 , 2 9 , 3 0 ; n o . 5 , 1. 4 9 ; n o . 7, 1. 8; n o . 8,11. 2 0 , 2 4 ; n o . 1 3 , 1 . 4 ; n o . 1 7 , 1 . 14; n o . 1 8 , 1 . 11; n o . 2 1 , 8; no. 2 2 , 1 . 2 3 ; n o . 2 6 , 1 . 7; n o . 2 8 , 1 1 . 7, 12, 16, 2 9 ; n o . 30,11. 2 3 , 2 8 , 3 0 Yvcoixn: n o . 1 , 1 . 12; n o . 1 8 , 1 . 5; n o . 2 2 , 1. 8; n o . 2 7 , 1 . 11 yvcopiuxx;: n o . 3 0 , 1 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 8 ypdu,ua: n o . 2 , 1 . 10; n o . 17, 11. 5 - 6 ; no. 2 8 , 1 . 7; xd 5r||a6oia y p d u | i a x a : no. 1, 11. 7 - 8 ; n o . 1 7 , 1 . 18 ypd(i)to: n o . 9 , 1 . 15; n o . 17,11. 6 , 1 5 ; no. 1 9 , 1 . 9; n o . 2 4 , 1 . 9; n o . 2 6 , 11. 3 , 5; ypaoui:vcp rcapfjaav: n o . 8, 1. 6

yvvr\: no. 19,1. 12; no. 2 0 , 1 . 12

acvXia: no. 2 2 , 1 . 11; no. 2 4 , 1 . 7

S e t : n o . 1 2 , 1 . 10; n o . 3 0 , 1 . 4 1

avxoKpdxcop: n o . 1,11. 1, 1 1 , 1 6 - 1 7 ; no. 3 , 1 . 1; n o . 5 , 1 . 1; n o . 6, 11. 1, 6; no. 9 , 1. 2 ; no. 2 2 , 1 . 5; n o . 3 0 , 11. 1 1 , 17

5 e i c i 8 a | a o v i a : n o . 10,11. 3 - 4 ; n o . 1 2 ,

d(|>atp£|j,a : n o . 9 , 1. 15 d^aipeco: n o . 2 5 , 1 . 1 1 ; n o . 3 0 , 1 . 4 1 d())opi^co: n o . 2 0 , 1 . 16 d(|)opur|: n o . 3 0 , 11. 3 0 , 3 3

I. 9; n o . 1 3 , 1 . 3 ; n o . 15, 1. 7; n o . 1 6 , II. 1 6 - 1 7 ; n o . 2 9 , 1 . 19 SeKaxT): n o . 5 , 1. 10

8eXioq: no. 1, 1. 5; no. 8,11. 2 , 4 , 2 2 , 23; 8e^xoc.: no. 9 , 1 . 1; no. 2 1 , 1 . 1 rcpwxoc: no. 28,11. 4 - 5 ; no. 30,11. 3 , 2 6

7n>YUT|: no. 5 , 1 . 4 4 'PWUXUKOC;: no.

2,1.

11

pwumaxl: no. 1,1. 9 xd adppaxa: no. 9 , 1 . 9; no. 2 2 , 1 . 14; no. 2 4 , 1 . 10; xd adppaxa ayeiv. no.17,1. 7; no. 18,11. 6 - 7 ; no. 19, 11. 1 2 - 1 3 ; no. 2 1 , 1 . 6; rcapaxripeiv xf|v xcov aappdxcov fiuipav: no. 2 1 , 11. 1 0 - 1 1 aaPPaxeiov: no. 2 2 , 1 . 17 aaPpaxiKoc.: no. 5,11. 4, 2 6

OTCeipco: no. 5,11. 6, 8 no. 1, 1. 15; 8 i d a7to\)8fiA.a