� 17. The Sons Of Herod

§ 17. THE SONS OF HEROD
a. PHILIP, B.C. 4-A.D. 34. HIS TERRITORY UNDER THE ROMANS, A.D. 34-37
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, 4. 6, 6. 10; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1-6.
On the coins, see below.
LITERATURE[674]
[674] The most thorough treatise on Herod’s sons and grandsons is the article by Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon.—The older literature is given by Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s, § 558.
EWALD, History of Israel, vi. 71-74, 347.
WESTCOTT in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
WINER, Realwörterbuch, ii. 250.
LEYRER in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xi. 618.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 258, 274; in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iii. 40-42.
LEWIN, Fasti Sacri (see Index, p. 408).
BRANN, Die Söhne des Herodes, 1873 (reprint from the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums), pp. 77-87.
THE extent of the territory which Philip received is variously stated in different places by Josephus.[675] Putting altogether, it embraced the districts of Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias, and, according to Luke 3:1, also Iturea.[676] The districts named were not ancient tribal possessions of the Jewish people, but were in great part added to the Jewish territory in later times. The population was a mixed one; and the non-Jewish, i.e. Syrian and Greek, element prevailed.[677] Philip himself was certainly a real exception among the sons and grandsons of Herod. While all the others, copying fathers and grandfathers, were ambitious, imperious, harsh, and tyrannical toward their subjects, nothing but what is honourable is told of Philip. His reign was mild, just, and peaceful. To the traditions of his father he remained faithful only in this, that he also sought renown in the construction of great buildings. The building of two cities by him is expressly reported. The ancient Panias, at the sources of the Jordan, north of the lake of Gennezaret, he rebuilt, with larger dimensions, and gave it, in honour of the emperor, the name of Caesarea. To distinguish it from the well-known Caesarea by the sea, it was called Caesarea Philippi, under which name we are familiar with it in the Gospel history (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27). The other city which he rebuilt was the Bethsaida[678] situated at the point where the Jordan enters into the lake of Gennezaret, which, in honour of the daughter of Augustus, he named Julias.[679] Josephus tells of him, incidentally, that he first discovered and proved that the supposed sources of the Jordan at Panias obtained their water by a subterranean passage from the so-called Phiala. Philip demonstrated this by throwing in chaff into the Phiala, which came out again at Panias.[680]
[675] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1, 11. 4, xviii. 4. 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. In the latter passage, undoubtedly, instead of Ἰάμνειαν should be read Πανειάδα, in accordance with Antiq. xvii. 8. 1, 11. 4.
[676] Batanea corresponds to the Old Testament Bashan (בָּשָׁנ); Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 232: Βασάν … αὕτη Βασανῖτις ἡ νῦν καλουμένη Βαταναία. Yet the ancient Bashan was of larger extent than the modern Batanea. By Bashan was understood the whole region on the other side of Jordan between Hermon on the north and the district of Gilead on the south, extending eastward as far as Salcha, on the southern slope of the Hauran. See Deuteronomy 3:10; Deuteronomy 3:13; Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:11; Joshua 13:30; Joshua 17:1; Joshua 17:5; 1 Chronicles 5:23. But within this district lay the later provinces of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Gaulanitis; so that thus Batanea is only a part of the ancient Bashan. The expression, however, is sometimes used even by later writers in the wider sense; e.g. Josephus, Life, 11 med.: μετὰ τῶν ἐν Βαταναίᾳ Τραχωνιτῶν. Since the cities of Ashtaroth and Edrei are named as the chief cities of Bashan (Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:11; Joshua 13:30), it may be assumed that these also formed the centre of the modern Batanea. Edrei, later Adraa, the modern Derʾa, lies almost exactly in the middle between the southern point of the lake of Gennezaret and the southern end of the mountains of Hauran. That Ashtaroth and Adraa lay in Batanea is stated by Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, pp. 209, 213, 268, articles Ἀσταρὼθ Καρναείν, Ἀσταρώθ, and Καρναεὶμ Ἀσταρώθ). The Greek Βαταναία of Polybius, xvi., also corresponds to that of Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 3, and Ptolemy, v. 15. 26.
[677] In Batanea, Herod the Great, in the last years of his reign, had settled a Jewish colony from Babylon, under the leadership of a certain Zamaris, and conferred on them the privilege of complete freedom from taxation, which was also, in all essential points, respected by Philip. See Antiq. xvii. 2. 1-3. For the history of this colony, compare also Josephus, Life, 11; De Saulcy, “Monnaies des Zamarides” (Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 157-181). These “coins of the Zamaridae” are in the highest degree problematical.—In Trachonitis, Herod the Great had settled 3000 Idumeans, to whom he assigned the task of maintaining the peace of the district against the robber bands which inhabited it. See Antiq. xvi. 9. 2.—The majority of the inhabitants, however, was pagan, as is proved by the large proportion of the Greek inscriptions of that region which are still preserved. Compare also, in general, Wars of the Jews, iii. 3.5: οἰκοῦοι δὲ αὐτὴν μιγάδες Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ Σύροι; and, in addition, Div. II. vol. i. p. 4.
[678] To be distinguished, probably, from the New Testament town of that name. See, however, Div. II. vol. i. p. 136.
[679] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1.—On both cities, the time of their building and their subsequent history, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 133-136.
[680] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 10. 7. According to the description of Josephus, the “Phiala” can scarcely be anything else than the present Birket Ram. But then the story told by him is not possible, owing to the relative levels. See Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 174-177; Robinson, Later Biblical Researches, p. 400; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 394; Guérin, Galilee, ii. 329-331; Schumacher, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ix. 1886, p. 256 f. (with map).
Trachonitis or ὁ Τράχων (so Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 5, xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3; and the inscription of Mismie) is the rugged plateau south of Damascus, stretching on to Bostra, which is now called the Lejâh. It lies, therefore, north-east of Batanea proper. Proof of this is afforded by the following data. On an inscription at Mismie, the ancient Phäna, in the north of the Lejâh, this place is characterized as μητροκωμία τοῦ Τράχωνος (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4551=Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2524). Strabo speaks of the Τράχωνες as two hills in the neighbourhood of Damascus (Strabo, xvi. 2. 20, p. 756: ὑπέοκεινται δ αὐτῆς δύο λεγόμενοι λόφοι Τράχωνες; compare also xvi. 2. 16, p. 755). Eusebius places Trachonitis in the immediate neighbourhood of Bostra (Onomasticon, s.v. Ἰτουραία, ed. Lagarde, p. 268: Τραχωνῖτις δὲ καλεῖται ἡ παρακειμένη χώρα τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῇ κατὰ Βόστραν τῆς Ἀραβίας.. Ibid. s.v. Κανάθ, p. 269: κεῖται δὲ καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν Τραχῶνι πλησίον Βοστρῶν. Ibid. s.v. Τραχωνῖτις, p. 298: ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἐπέκεινα Βοστρῶν κατὰ τὴν ἔρημον πρὸς νότον ὡς ἐπὶ Δαμασκόν). Also in a rabbinical treatise on the boundaries of Palestine the statement occurs: “Trachon, in the neighbourhood of Bostra” (jer. Shebiith vi. 1, fol. 36c; Tosephta Shebiith iv. ed. Zuckermandel, p. 66, 10; Siphre, section Ekeb, at the end. The Jerusalem Talmud has טדכונא דמתחם לבוצרה, “Trachon, which borders on Bostra.” Compare on the whole subject: Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, pp. 10-21; and, especially, Hildesheimer, Beiträge zur Géographie Palästinas, Berlin 1886 [on Trachon, pp. 55-57]). The Targums identify טרכונא with the biblical Argob (Onkelos, Deuteronomy 3:4; Deuteronomy 3:13 f.). Pliny speaks of Trachonitis as in the neighbourhood of Panias (Pliny, Hist. Naturalis, v. 74); Ptolemy (v. 15. 26) speaks of the Τραχωνῖται Ἄραβες as dwelling to the east of Batanea. The latter passage is indeed explained by Waddington, Comptes rendus de l’Academie des inscr. 1865, p. 102 sq., as meaning rather the reverse, namely, that Batanea proper lay to the east of Trachonitis; but his exposition hardly commends itself.—In determining the meaning of Luke 3:1, it is of interest to note that Philo, or rather Agrippa in the letter communicated by Philo, uses the abbreviated expression: τὴν Τραχωνῖτιν λεγομένην, to describe the whole territory of Philip, just as for the territories of Herod Antipas he uses the phrase: τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; both a parte potiori, as in Luke. See Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 41, ed. Mangey, ii. 593 fin.
Auranitis is the חַוְרָן mentioned by Ezekiel 47:16; Ezekiel 47:18; which also in the Mishna, Rosh hashana ii. 4, is spoken of as one of the stations for the five signals from Judea to Babylon. Some manuscripts of the Mishna have חוורן, others חברן. Since the Hauran, according to the context of the Mishna, must be a mountain, Auranitis is undoubtedly the country round about the mountain peak, which now is called Jebel Hauran.
Gaulanitis has its name from the town Golan, which in the Bible is reckoned in Bashan (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8; Joshua 21:27; 1 Chronicles 6:56; Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 242). Josephus distinguishes Upper and Lower Gaulanitis, and remarks that in the latter lies the city Gamala (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1; according to the same passage, Gamala lay on the eastern bank of the lake of Gennezaret). According to Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 1, Gaulanitis formed the eastern boundary of Galilee. Hence Gaulanitis is practically within the same lines as what is now called Djaulan, embracing the lowlands east of the Jordan from its source down to the southern point of the lake of Gennezaret. A detailed description of it is given by Schumacher in the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ix. 1886.
The district of Panias, at the sources of the Jordan (see on the town Panias, Div. II. vol. i. pp. 132-135), had in earlier times belonged to Zenodorus, and before that to the kingdom of the Itureans (see Appendix I. at the close of this volume). So far the statement of Luke is not altogether incorrect, that Philip also ruled over Iturea. But that district formed, indeed, only a small portion of what had been the kingdom of the Itureans. The Itureans proper had their dwelling in the Lebanon (see Appendix I.), and during the period A.D. 38-49 were under the sovereignty of a certain Soemus (Dio Cassius, lix. 12; Tacitus, xii. 23), while at that same time Agrippa I. had in his possession the whole tetrarchy of Philip (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, xix. 8. 2). Iturea proper cannot therefore have belonged to the domain of Philip (see Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 41). Wetzstein’s idea is certainly wrong, that Iturea is to be placed upon the eastern slope of the Hauran.
Compare generally on the districts above named: Reland, Palaestina, pp. 106-110, 193-203; Gesenius, Thesaurus, pp. 249 sq., 458 sq., 285 sq.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 800-1001; Raumer, Palästina, p. 226 ff.; the articles on Basan, Trachonitis, Havran or Hauran, and Golan in the Biblical Dictionaries of Smith, Kitto, Fairbairn, Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm; F. W. Schultz in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. ii. 112-116 (article “Basan”); Cless in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2, 2038 f., art. “Trachonitis;” Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 381 f., 384 f.; Porter, “Historico-Geographical History of Bashan” (in Journal of Sacred Literature, new series, vol. vi. 1854, pp. 281-313); Five Years in Damascus, 1855, ii. 250-275; Wetzstein, Reisebericht über Hauran und die Trachonen, 1860, pp. 36 f., 82-92; Wetzstein’s Excursus to Delitzsch’s Commentary on Job; Waddington, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1865, pp. 82-89, 102-109. The treatise of Nöldeke, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1875, p. 419 ff., deals with the sixth century after Christ.
With reference to the southern limits of the tetrarchy of Philip this much may be accepted with confidence, that the region round about the cities now called Bosra and Salkhat, south of the Hauran, did not belong to his domain, as is proved by inscriptions discovered in these cities bearing the names of the Arabian kings Malchus and Aretas. See de Vogüé, Syrie centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques (1868), pp. 103, 107. On the other hand, Hebran, on the southern slope of the Hauran, still belonged to his territory; for an Aramaic inscription found there is dated not according to the years of the reign of an Arabian king, but according to the years of Claudius: “In the month Tizri in the seventh year of the Emperor Claudius”=A.D. 46. See de Vogüé, p. 100. From this, therefore, one may conclude that Hebran belonged to the domain of Philip, and that in A.D. 37 it was given over to Agrippa I., and was after his death placed under Roman administration. Compare the remarks of Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2286.
We know, however, nothing more about his reign beyond what Josephus tells us in reporting his death:[681] “He had shown himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government He constantly lived in that country which was subject to him. He used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal, also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it and heard his complaint; he then ordered the guilty, that were convicted, to be punished, and absolved those that were accused unjustly.”—Of his private life we know only that he was married to Salome, daughter of Herodias, and that there were no children by this marriage.[682]—According to his political principles, he was a consistent friend of the Romans, and laid great value upon the favour of the emperor. This is shown not only in his giving to his cities the names of Caesarea and Julias, but also in his impressing upon his coins the images of Augustus and Tiberius,—this being the first instance in which any likeness was engraven on the coins of a Jewish prince.[683]
[681] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 6: Τελευτᾷ … μέτριον ὲν οἷς ἧρχε παρασχὼν τὸν τρόπον καί απράγμονα. Δίαιταν μὲν γὰρ τὸ πᾶν ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ὑποτελεὶ ἐποιεῖτο· πρόοδοι δʼ ἦσαν αὐτῷ σὺν ὀλιγοις τῶν ἐπιλέκτων, καὶ τοῦ θρόνου εἰς ὃν κρίνειε καθιζόμενος ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἑπομένου, ὁπότε τις ὑπαντιάσας ἐν χρείᾳ γένοιτο αὐτῷ ἐπιβοηθεῖν, οὐδὲν εἰς ἀναβολὰς ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος ἱδρύσεως τοῦ θρόνου ᾗ καὶ τύχοι γενομένης καθιζόμενος ἠκροᾶτο, καὶ τιμωρίας τε ἐπετίμα τοῖς ἁλοῦσι καὶ ἠφίει τοὺς ἀδίκως ἐν ἐγκλήμασι γενομένους.—The judge’s sitting upon the sella was a necessary formality, without which the decision would have no legal effect. Examples: Matthew 27:19; John 19:13; Acts 25:6; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 3 (Pilate), ii. 14. 8 (Florus), iii. 10. 10 (Vespasian). Generally on the sella curulis and the sitting of the magistrate, Rein in Pauly’e Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 960; Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. 315 ff.
[682] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4.
[683] In explanation of this, it should be remembered that Philip’s domain was predominantly pagan.—Compare on the coins: Eckhel, iii. 490 sq.; Mionnet, v. 566 sq.; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 126, pl. lx. n. 1-2; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 100-102; De Saulcy, “Notes sur les monnaies de Philippe le tétrarque” (Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. iii. 1868-1873, pp. 262-265); Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 123-127 (this is the most complete exposition); De Saulcy, “Monnaie inédite de Philippe le tétrarque” (Annuaire de la Société fr. de. Num. et d’Arch. t. v., or, seconde série, t. i. fasc. 3, 1879, p. 181 sq.).—The coins have on the one side the name of Philip, ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, with the image of a temple and the number of the year 12, 16, 19, 33, 37 (the number of the year IB=12 in Madden, Coins, p. 125, and on an example in de Saulcy, Annuaire, v. 3. 181 sq., not given by Madden). The year Numbers 26, 29, given by Mionnet, are regarded by de Saulcy as false readings. The coins of the year 37 (first communicated by Madden, History, p. 102) belong to the last year of Philip, A.D. 33-34. The coins of the year 12 and 16=A.D. 8-9 or 12-13, have on the obverse the head of Augustus and the inscription ΚΑΙσΑΡΙ σΕΒΑσΤΩ (fragmentary); those of the years 19, 33, 37 have the head of Tiberius, with a similar inscription: those of 37 have the full name ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟς σΕΒΑσΤΟς ΚΑΙσΑΡ.—The temple engraved on all the coins is indeed the temple of Augustus at Panias which Herod the Great had built (Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 3). The type is therefore wholly pagan.—The image and name of the emperor are also found on the coins of many other dependent kings, from the time of Augustus onward; yet there are still instances in which all allusion to the supreme imperial authority is wanting. See Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges socii populi Romani fuerint, 1877, pp. 45-49.
Philip died, after a reign of thirty-seven years, in the 20th year of Tiberius, A.D. 33-34, and was buried in the tomb built by himself.[684] His territory was then added to that of Syria, but retained the right of administering its own revenues;[685] and was again, after a few years, made over to a prince of the Herodian family. The Emperor Caligula, immediately after his succession to the throne, in March A.D. 37, gifted the tetrarchy of Philip to Agrippa, a son of that Aristobolus who had been executed by his father Herod, and so a grandson of Herod and Mariamme.[686]
[684] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 6.—The 20th year of Tiberius began on the 19th. August A.D. 33. The 37th year of Philip ended, if we reckon from Nisan to Nisan (compare vol. i. p. 465), in spring A.U.C. 787=A.D. 34. Philip therefore died in the winter of A.D. 33-34.
[685] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4 6.
[686] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6.
b. HEROD ANTIPAS, B.C. 4-A.D. 39
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1 and 3, 4. 5, 5. 1-3, 7. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1, 6.
In the New Testament: Matthew 14:1-11; Mark 6:14-28; Luke 3:19 f., 9:7-9, 13:31, 23:7-12.
On the coins, see below.
LITERATURE
GEIKIE, Life and Words of Christ, 7th ed. London 1879, i. 298-302, 500, ii. 182.
EWALD, History of Israel, vi. 74-80, vii. 241, 242.
HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 284 ff., 325 ff., ii. 207 ff., 221 ff.
WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 484.
WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 50, 159, 216. Also in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 465 f.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 269, ii. 333, 340, 392, iv. 217, vi. 103. Also in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 42-46.
GERLACH in the Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp. 32-53.
LEWIN, Fasti Sacri (see Index, p. 408).
BRANN, Die Söhne des Herodes, 1873 (reprint from the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums), pp. 17-76.
In the partition of their father’s possessions, a larger slice than that given to Philip fell to the lot of his half-brother Antipas, or, as he is frequently called by Josephus, on the coins, and in the New Testament, Herod, to whom, as well as to Philip, was given the title of tetrarch.[687] His territory, embracing Galilee and Perea, was indeed broken up into two parts by the so-called Decapolis, which came in like a wedge between Galilee and Perea.[688] But for this he was amply indemnified by the fact that the half of his domains consisted of the beautiful, fertile, and thickly-populated Galilee, with its vigorous and brave, though freedom-loving inhabitants.[689] In point of character, Antipas was a genuine son of old Herod,—sly, ambitious, and luxurious, only not so able as his father.[690] In regard to his slyness we have unmistakable evidence from the life of Jesus, who, on a memorable occasion, attached to him the designation of “that fox.”[691] It was always necessary to have recourse to craft in order to keep the Galileans in order, and to guard the frontiers of Perea against the robber raids of the Arabians. For the defence of Galilee he rebuilt Sepphoris, that had been destroyed by fire by the soldiers of Varus (see above, p. 4), and surrounded it with strong walls. And for the defence of Perea he fortified Betharamphtha, and named it after the emperor’s wife Livias or Julias.[692] He was also undoubtedly induced by political motives to marry the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas.[693] He thought that in this way he would be better able than by all fortifications to secure the country against the inroads of the Arabians; and perhaps it was Augustus himself who persuaded him to enter on this marriage.[694]
[687] Thus is he correctly named in Matthew 14:1; Luke 3:19; on the other hand, he is incorrectly called βασιλεύς in Mark 6:14.—Since Herod Antipas is the only Herod who bore the title of tetrarch, the two following inscriptions are undoubtedly to be referred to him. They give evidence, at the same time, of his foreign travels:—
[688] Compare the map in Menke’s Bibelatlas.—On the Decapolis (Matthew 4:25; Mark 5:20; Mark 7:31), see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 94-121.
[689] Compare the description of Galilee in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 2-3, 10. 8.
[690] Josephus in Antiq. xviii. 7. 2, characterizes him as ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἡσυχίαν.
[691] Luke 13:32.—Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 1. 315; Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, p. 36; and Volkmar, Die Evangelien, 1870, p. 499 f., explain the use of the phrase “that fox,” not as a symbol of craftiness, but as that of open robbery and rapacity. See, on the other hand, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 344; and Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. i. (1870) art. “Fuchs.” In the Talmud the fox is expressly designated as “being regarded as the sliest among the beasts,” שאומרין עליו פקח שבחיות (b. Berachoth 61b).
[692] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1.—On both cities, and on the change of the names Livias and Julias, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 141-143.
[693] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1.—On Aretas and the Nabatean kings generally, see Appendix II.
[694] Compare Suetonius, Augustus, c. 48: “Reges socios etiam inter semet ipsos necessitudinibus mutuis junxit, promptissimus affinitatis cujusque atque amicitiae conciliator et fautor.”
(a) On the island of Cos (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 2502):
Ἡρώδην
Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως υἱόν,
τετράρχην,
Φίλων Ἀγλάου, φύσει δὲ Νίκωνος
τὸν αὑτοῦ ξένον καὶ φίλον.
(b) On the island of Delos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, t. iii. 1879, p. 365 sq.):
Ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀ[θηναίων καὶ οἱ]
κατοικο[ῦντες τὴν νῆσον]
Ἡρώδην βασιλέ[ως Ἡρώδον υἱὸν]
τετράρχην ἀρετῆ[ς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοί-]
ας τῆς εἰς ἑαυτοὺ[ς … ἀνέθηκαν].
Like all the Herods, Herod Antipas delighted in magnificent buildings. In this direction he was particularly taken up with the idea of building a splendid capital, which he undertook during the time of Tiberius.[695] He selected, as the site for his city, the most beautiful spot in Galilee, the western bank of the lake of Gennezaret, in the neighbourhood of the warm springs of Emmaus. The choice of this spot was in one respect not a happy one. For just on that spot on which the city was built, as became apparent from the sepulchral monuments, was an ancient burying-ground, and the inhabiting of such a place was impossible to the Jews who strictly observed the law, since every contact with a grave occasioned ceremonial impurity of seven days.[696] Herod was therefore obliged, in order to secure inhabitants for his city, to settle there by force many foreigners, adventurers, and beggars, so that the population was of a very mixed description. But in regard to the beauty of the buildings nothing more perfect could be desired. It had, among other public structures, a δτάδιον[697] and a royal palace, which, indeed, by its figures of animals gave offence, and during the war with the Romans was sacrificed to the fanaticism of the Jews.[698] Also there was not wanting a Jewish προσευχή, a μέγιστον οἴκημα.[699] The constitution of the city was wholly modelled upon the Hellenistic pattern. It had a council, βουλή, of 600 members, with an ἄρχων, and a committee of the δέκα πρῶτοι; also Hyparchs and an Agoranomos. In honour of the emperor the new capital was named Tiberias.[700]
[695] On the time of the building of Tiberias, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 143, 144.
[696] Numbers 19:16; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 3. More detailed particulars about impurity caused by graves are given in Mishna Ohaloth xvii., xviii.
[697] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 6, iii. 10. 10; Life, 17, 64.
[698] Josephus, Life, 12.
[699] Josephus, Life, 54.
[700] Compare on the building of Tiberias generally: Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1; Life, 9. For further details about the city and the nature of its institution, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 143-147.
During the time of Pilate, A.D. 26-36, Antipas, together with his brother, successfully made complaints against Pilate on account of his having set up an offensive votive shield in the palace at Jerusalem.[701] And as he was in this instance the representation of the Jewish claims, he also did not venture otherwise, notwithstanding his paganish buildings at Tiberias, to break away completely from the traditions of Judaism, and even in this respect showed himself a true son of Herod. From the Gospel we know that he went up to the feast at Jerusalem (Luke 23:7); and his coins, just like those of old Herod, have upon them no image.[702]
[701] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 30 (ed. Mangey, ii. 589 sq.).—Philo indeed does not mention the name of Antipas, but states that “οἱ βασιλέως [Ἡρώδου] υἱεῖς τέτταρες οὐκ ἀποδέοντες τό τε ἀξίωμα καὶ τὰς τύχας τῶν βασιλέων” made themselves specially prominent in the business. Philip and Antipas were first of all intended by this statement. Archelaue was no longer resident in Palestine after A.D. 6. But it remains questionable who the other two are. We know expressly from Antiq. xvii. 1. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, that there were still three sons of Herod who might be named in this connection: 1. Herod, son of Mariamme; 2. Herod, son of Cleopatra; and 3. Phasael, son of Pallas.
[702] On the coins of Herod Antipas, compare Eckhel, iii. 486-490; Mionnet, v. 566; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 125, pl. lix. n. 16-20; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53, 58-60; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Munzen, p. 80; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 95-99; De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 254; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 47-49; De Saulcy, Melanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 92; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 118-122 (this gives the most complete list).—The coins fall into two classes: 1. The one class has the inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, with the number of the year, 33, 34, 37, 38; on the other side the name of the city, ΤΙΒΕΡΙΑΣ. 2. The other class has the inscription ΗΡΩΔΗΣ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΗΣ; on the other side, ΓΑΙΩ ΚΑΙσΑΡΙ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΩ. Of this second class there are only three examples which can be with certainty identified, all with the year number ΜΓ or 43=A.D. 39-40. Since this was most probably the last year of Herod Antipas, the existence of the year number 44, which some prefer to read, is extremely questionable. One of the two who contend for this date, Vaillant, is generally not to be depended on; the other, Freret, describes a coin (in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, alte serie, t. xxi. 1754, p. 293, according to a manuscript by Erland) which had on one side the inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ (sic), while the inscription on the other side was quite illegible. The coin, seems therefore to have belonged to the first class, and it may be reasonably conjectured that instead of ΜΔ, 44, should be read ΛΔ, 34. Compare, however, what is said in vol. i. p. 465.—The coins of Antipas, with the name of the emperor, without his image, occupy a middle position between those of Herod the Great, which have neither name nor image of the emperor, and those of Philip, which have both.
The complaint against Pilate was probably not made before A.D. 36.[703] Also what we otherwise known of Herod Antipas belongs to the later period, somewhere in the last ten years of his reign. During that period he was almost wholly under the influence of a woman, who occasioned to him a whole series of misfortunes. When once he made a journey to Rome, we know not for what purpose, nor exactly at what time, he started before the departure of his half-brother Herod, the son of Mariamme the high priest’s daughter, who had been designated eventual successor to the throne in the first will of Herod (see vol. i. p. 462). That Herod was married to Herodias, a daughter of Aristobulus, executed in B.C. 7.[704] The issue of this marriage was Salome, the wife of the tetrarch Philip, who was then not the first husband, as the Gospels tell us, but the son-in-law of Herodias.[705] When now Antipas paid a visit to the house of his brother, he was fascinated by Herodias, and made his proposals of marriage, to which the ambitious woman readily assented. It was arranged that Herod on his return from Rome should divorce his wife, the daughter of Aretas, and should be married to Herodias. With this promise he proceeded on his journey to Rome. On his return, his wife, who had meanwhile obtained information about the proposed procedure, entreated him that he would have her sent to Machärus, the strong fortress east of the Dead Sea, which then belonged to Aretas. Since Antipas did not desire that his wife should know about his secret plans, he granted her wish. But scarcely had the daughter of Aretas reached Machärus, when she fled thence to her father, and let him know what friendly intentions her husband entertained regarding her. From that moment the Arabian king took up an attitude of direct opposition to Herod Antipas.[706] Nevertheless Antipas seems to have proceeded immediately with his marriage with Herodias.
[703] This conclusion may be drawn from Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 24 (ed. Mangey, ii. 569), according to which Tiberius, during the lifetime of Sejanus (who died A.D. 31), was unfavourably disposed toward the Jews, whereas after his death he became decidedly favourable to their religious peculiarities.
[704] Compare on Herodias, Winer, RWB. i. 486; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 46-49.
[705] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4.—Philip is named as first husband of Herodias in Mark 6:17. The parallel passage, Matthew 14:3, omits the name in cod. D, and is put in brackets by Tischendorf (ed. 8), but is inclined, owing to the unanimous testimony of all the other manuscripts, to hold it as genuine. In Luke 3:19, on the other hand, where it is inserted in the textus receptus, it ought certainly to be struck out.—Since, according to Josephus, not the tetrarch Philip, but the above-named Herod, was the first husband of Herodias, the statement of Mark and Matthew is evidently a mistake. Many, indeed (among them Winer, RWB. art. “Philippius”), seek to explain away this mistake by assuming that they gave to this Herod the name Herod Philip, who therefore, distinct indeed from the tetrarch Philip, was meant by Mark and Matthew. But it must be admitted as very remarkable that the one name should be chosen by Josephus and the other by the New Testament writers; and yet more peculiar would it have been had the old Herod two sons with the name of Philip. If we are to reason analogically from the use of the name Herod, which several of his sons had, such reasoning will not apply here: for that was the family name. And just as little to the purpose is the analogy of the two brothers, Antipater and Antipas, for these are actually quite different names. We can therefore come to no other conclusion than this, that it must be admitted that the two evangelists made a mistake. Compare Volkmar, Theol. Jahrbb. 1846, pp. 363-383; Ewald, History of Israel, vi. 77; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 390; Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 47.
[706] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1.—On Machärus, see vol. i. p. 436, and § 20 toward the end. Machärus at all other periods, before and after, formed part of the Jewish territory. Alexander Jannaeus fortified it, as did also Herod the Great (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). Herod Antipas put John the Baptist in prison there. In the Vespasian war it was one of the best places of refuge for the rebels (Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6, vii. 6). It is therefore very remarkable that it should then have belonged to the Arabian king. The words of Josephus are as follows: εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα τότε [al. τῷ τε, Bekker, conj. τὸν τῷ] πατρὶ αὐτῆς ὑποτελῆ. It is equally remarkable that Antipas should have guilelessly allowed his wife to go to this fortress belonging to the Arabian king. Or did he consciously agree to it in order to smooth the way for her flight, wishing thus to be rid of her? Josephus did not so conceive of the matter, for according to his representation Herod Antipas knew nothing of the meditated flight. Hitzig (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 567) for these reasons regards the statement that Machärus then belonged to Aretas as an interpolation. It may be, however, that, on the contrary, some words have dropped out, or that Josephus himself made a misstatement through carelessness.
At the time of this marriage, or soon thereafter, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ made their appearance, both of them carrying on their labours in the domains of Antipas, the Baptist in Perea,[707] Jesus in Galilee. Of John the Baptist, Josephus gives the following account:[708] “He was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For the washing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins only, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when many others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best by putting him to death to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machärus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.”—This account by Josephus, if it really belongs originally to him, and the accounts of the New Testament about the Baptist and his relation with the tetrarch Herod, mutually supplement one another. What Josephus says about the contents of the Baptist’s preaching of repentance has indeed very much of the style of the cultured Græco-Roman world. In this respect the short statements of the synoptic Gospels are truer and more reliable.[709] On the other hand, it is highly probable that the real occasion of the imprisonment of the Baptist by Antipas was, just as Josephus states, fear of political trouble. The powerful popular preacher did undoubtedly produce a great excitement, which was indeed first of all of a religious kind, but certainly not without the mingling of a political element. For the masses of the people were not then able to keep separate their religious and political hopes. It is therefore quite credible that Antipas feared political troubles from the labours of the Baptist, and so, when he extended his activity to Perea, cast him into prison. Nevertheless the evangelists may be right (Matthew 14:3 f.; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19 f.) when they say that he did this because John blamed him for his marriage with Herodias. The two statements are not inconsistent with one another.[710]—The place where John was imprisoned is not named by the evangelists. From Josephus we learn that it was Machärus, the strong fortress on the east of the Dead Sea. It must then have been no longer in the possession of the Arabian king Aretas, as it was at the time of the flight of the first wife of Antipas, but in the possession of Herod Antipas himself. We do not indeed know in what way it had meanwhile come into his hands.[711]—According to Josephus, it would seem as if the execution of the Baptist followed immediately upon his arrestment and imprisonment But from the Gospel narrative we see that Herod kept the Baptist a longer time in prison, being undecided as to what he should do with him.[712] At last the decision was brought about by Herodias, the chief foe of the rigid preacher of repentance. When on the occasion of the celebration of Antipas’ birthday[713] in the palace of Machärus, for there it was that the whole business was carried out,[714] a great banquet was given, the daughter of Herodias, Salome (she was still a κοράσιον, Matthew 14:11; Mark 6:22; Mark 6:28; therefore not yet married to Philip), by her dancing so delighted the tetrarch, that he promised to fulfil to her any wish she might express. At the instigation of her mother, she demanded the head of the Baptist. Herod was weak enough to gratify the wish immediately, and to give orders that the Baptist should be beheaded in the prison at Machärus.[715]
[707] The scene of the Baptist’s activity may have been, as Keim (Jesus of Nazara, ii. 231-235) supposes, for the most part on this side of Jordan, therefore in Judea. But in any case he did actually work on the other bank in Perea is proved, not only by the fourth evangelist (i. 2, 8, iii. 26, x. 40), but also by the fact of the imprisonment by Antipas. This is admitted even by Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 265, 266.
[708] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 2: Κτείνει τοῦτον Ἡρώδης ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους κελεύοντα, ἀρετὴν ἐπασκοῦντας καὶ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους δικαιο σύνῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείᾳ χρωμένους, βαπτισμῷ συνιέναι: οὕτω γὰρ δὴ καὶ τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι, μὴ ἐπὶ τινῶν ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, ἀλλʼ ἐφʼ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης. Καὶ τῶν ἄλλων συστρεφομένων (καὶ γὰρ ἤρθησαν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τῇ ἀκροάσει τῶν λόγων) δείσας Ἡρώδης τὸ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε πιθανὸν αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις μὴ ἐπὶ ἀποστάσει τινὶ φέροι (πάντα γὰρ ἐῴκεσαν συμβουλῇ τῇ ἐκείνου πράξοντες), πολὺ κρεῖττον ἡγεῖται, πρίν τι νεώτερον ἐξ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι, προλαβὼν ἀναιρεῖν, ἢ μεταβολῆς γενομένης εἰς τὰ πράγματα ἐμτεσὼν μετανοεῖν. Καὶ ὃ μὲν ὑποηίᾳ τῇ Ἡρώδου δέσμιος εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα πεμφθείς, τὸ προειρημένον φρούριον, ταύτῃ κτίννυται.
[709] Compare, in explanation of the passage in Josephus: Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus (1882). pp. 332-334; Klöpper, “Ein paar Bemerkungen zu dem Urtheil des Josephus über Johannes den Täufer” (Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1865, pp. 1-28).—Also in the almost unlimited literature on John the Baptist some notice is, as a rule, taken of this passage in Josephus. See especially Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 201-266. The earlier literature is given in Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Johannes der Täufer;” Hase, Leben Jesu, § 42; Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), § 561.
[710] The genuineness of the passage in Josephus is but rarely vindicated (even Volkmar sets aside without more ado; against this decision: J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Die heil. Schrift Neuen Testaments, 7 Thl. 3 Abth. Der Brief Jakobi, 1876, p. 4 f.). This, however, may be alleged in its favour, that the motive for imprisoning and executing the Baptist are there reported in a manner so entirely different from the account in the Gospels. But since Josephus in other passages has been certainly interpolated by a Christian hand, we cannot be here perfectly confident regarding its genuineness. Suspicion is awakened by the favourable estimate of John, who could have been viewed sympathetically by Josephus only upon one side, as an ascetic and moral preacher, but not as the prophet of the coming Messiah who powerfully moved the people.
[711] Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 382; Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nr. 51, col. 1218 f., conjectures that Antipas had gained possession of the fortress in the beginning of the war against Aretas. But even apart from the fact that this supposition is possible only if one places, as Keim does, the apprehension of the Baptist close upon the outbreak of the war with Aretas, i.e. in A.D. 34, it is not still probable that Herod should have confined a political prisoner in a fortress that had been taken from the enemy. The word of Wieseler therefore in the Chronological Synopsis, pp. 216-217; Beiträge, pp. 5, 13; Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 166, that Aretas has been compelled at the bidding of Tiberius to surrender the fortress to Herod, is more forcible.—Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp. 49-51, believes that the fortress had never really been in the possession of Aretas, but that it was only the city of Machärus that for a long time lay under tribute to him. In this form the hypothesis is clearly impossible, since the one thing without the other is inconceivable. On the other hand, the supposition is well grounded, that the city and fortress of Machärus never belonged to Aretas, and that the statement we have been discussing originated in an error of Josephus or a corruption of our test of Josephus. See above, p. 22.—The most extraordinary of all is the idea of Sevin, that Machärus was still in the hands of Aretas when Herod Antipas imprisoned the Baptist, and had him executed in that stronghold of his father-in-law. Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. p. 96; generally, pp. 90-96.
[712] Matthew 14:5; Mark 6:20; Matthew 11:2-6; compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 340-343; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. p. 331; Weiss, Marcusevangelium, p. 217 f.
[713] The signification of γενέσια (Matthew 14:6; Mark 6:21) is matter of controversy. See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 266; Beiträge, p. 182 f.; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 223; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. p. 334; and the commentators on Matthew 14:6; Mark 6:21. Instead of the ordinary morning “birthday,” many expositors understand it to mean the anniversary day of his accession to the throne.” But an instance of this meaning cannot with certainty be got in the whole range of Greek literature; and even the rabbinical material, from which they seek support, is very weak. The principal passage in Mishna Aboda sara i. 3: “The following are the festivals of the heathen: The Calendae and the Saturnalia and the κράτησεις (קרטיסים), and the day of the γενέσια of the king (יום גיניסיא של מלכים), and the day of birth and the day of death. So R. Meir. The learned say: Only a case of death, wherein there evidently appears the scorching of fire, is accompanied by an idolatrous sacrifice; but where this is not the case there is no idol sacrifice.” An explanation of the expressions used is not given in the Mishna. In the Palestinian Talmud (Jer. Aboda sara i. fol. 39c), יום ניניסיא is interpreted by יום הלידה, “birthday.” In the Babylonian Talmud (Bab. Aboda sara 10a) there is a regular discussion over the meaning of the phrase, in which the reasons in favour of the meaning “birthday” are brought forward, but finally preference is given to the interpretation: יום שמעמידין בו מלךְ, “the day on which the king ascended the throne” (see Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, i. 394a, and the literal production of the whole discussion in the German translation in Abodah Sarah, translated by Ferd. Chr. Ewald, 2 Ausg. 1868, p. 70 f.). Upon this only is grounded the interpretation, “the anniversary of the accession to the throne,” adopted by many modern scholars. But since the Palestinians undoubtedly knew better about such matters than the Babylonians, who for the most part only guessed without accurately knowing, the interpretation of the Babylonians should not be accepted when it is in opposition to all other instances. So also Dalman, Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1889, 172, in his review of Strack’s Aboda sara. Also the connection of the context of the Mishna is in favour of the interpretation “birthday.” For קרתיסים is most probably the anniversary of the obtaining of the government. Therefore גיניסיא must be distinguished from it. But alongside of it is mentioned “the day of birth,” as further investigation of the Mishna shows, not the anniversary of the birth, but only that particular day on which a child is born. On the custom of celebrating the birthday anniversary in general, see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Natalis dies;” Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, Bd. i. 1879, p. 244 f.
[714] The Gospels of Matthew and Mark evidently assume that the banquet was given in the same place where the Baptist lay a prisoner. See Meyer on Matthew 14:10 ff. But that was Machärus. And there the banquet may, in fact, have been given. For Machärus had a beautiful palace, which had been built by Herod the Great (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). There is therefore no reason for transferring the scene to Julias, as is done by Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 220, 221; Beiträge, p. 5. The Gospels are silent in regard to the place; for from Mark 6:21 it is not necessarily to be concluded, as Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 217; Bibellexikon, iii. 48; and Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 369, think, that Mark assumes Galilee, that is, Tiberius, as the scene of the transaction.
[715] Matthew 14:6-11; Mark 6:21-28; Luke 9:9.—In Mark 6:22 some very important and authoritative tests, accepted by Westcott and Hort and Volkmar, read: τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρωδιάδος. According to this reading the maiden herself was called Herodias, and may have been a daughter of Herod Antipas, and not merely the daughter of Herodias. But a child of the marriage of Antipas with Herodias could not then have been more than two years old; whereas, on the other hand, we know from Josephus that Herodias by her first marriage had a daughter called Salome (Antiq. xviii. 5. 4). Also in the Gospel narrative itself the maiden appears only as a daughter of Herodias. The statement, therefore, that would result from that reading of Mark, cannot in any case be regarded as historically correct, be that reading ever so old.—On the imprisonment and execution of the Baptist generally, compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 329 ff., iv. 215 ff.; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, pp. 124-128.—The narrative of the Gospels contains much that arouses suspicion; especially that Salome is still designated a κοράσιον, whereas we are informed by Josephus that she had been married long before A.D. 28-30 to the tetrarch Philip, who had begun his reign in B.C. 4, and had died in A.D. 34 (see above, p. 16). But just the weakest point in the Gospel story is proved on more careful examination to be not improbable. The facts derived from Josephus are gathered together in the following summary by Gutschmid (Literarisches Centralblatt, 1874, p. 522, in his review of Brann’s, Die Söhne des Herodes): “Aristobulus, Salome’s second husband, was a son of Herod of Chalcis, by Mariam, the daughter of Joseph and Olympias, a sister of Archelaus, who had married after B.C. 7, but before B.C. 4. Therefore, at the earliest, Miriam’s son Aristobulus could not have been born before B.C. 5, and not likely before A.D. 14. This affords us incidentally dates for determining the age of Salome, whom we should not without necessity regard as much older than Aristobulus, since her second marriage, by which she was mother of three sons, was evidently one in which the partners were of similar age. Philip, her first husband, had in B.C. 4 or 3 reached such an age as to be capable of assuming the reins of government, and so must have been born at latest in B.C. 21. Though a great disparity of age between the two undoubtedly existed, we cannot, without making a most improbable hypothesis, suppose the difference to have been more than thirty years; this would give as the latest date for the birth of Salome, A.D. 10.” Gutschmid therefore assumes that Salome was born in A.D. 10, and regards it as quite possible that she was still a κοράσιον in A.D. 28, and that in her nineteenth year she married Philip, who was in his forty-ninth year.
Even before John had been removed from the scene, the “Mightier,” to whom he had pointed, had already made His appearance, and had begun to preach the gospel in Galilee. He, too, could not remain unnoticed by the nobles of the land. Yet Antipas first heard of the deeds of Jesus after the Baptist had been put to death. Hence, tormented by his evil conscience, he felt convinced that the Baptist had risen again, and was continuing his dangerous and revolutionary work.[716] In order to make sure whether this was so, he desired to see the miracle-worker who preached in Capernaum, and attracted all the people.[717] He meant in time to get rid of Him, not, however, by violence, but by craft. He won over to him the Pharisees, and got them to undertake the attempt to induce Jesus voluntarily to quit the country by representing to Him that Herod sought His life.[718] The plan was indeed very craftily conceived; but it failed in execution, because Jesus saw through it. Subsequently, indeed, Jesus did quit Galilee in order to take His death journey to Jerusalem. There also Antipas, who was at that time living at Jerusalem that he might keep the Passover, had the satisfaction of meeting with his mysterious subject. Pilate sent the prisoner to him, in order that he, as ruler of the province, might pronounce the death sentence clamoured for by the Jewish hierarchy. Antipas, however, would not lend himself to this scheme, but contented himself with pouring contempt upon Jesus, and sending Him back again to Pilate.[719]
[716] Matthew 14:1 f.; Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9.
[717] Luke 9:9.—Among the female followers of Christ there is mentioned the wife of an officer of Antipas (Luke 8:3 : Ἰωάννα γυνὴ Χουζᾶ ἐπιτρόπου Ἡρώδου).
[718] So at least is Luke 13:31-32 understood by many expositors. This interpretation, too, is correct; compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 344.
[719] Luke 23:7-12. Compare Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp. 40-42; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 103-105.
The chronology of the public ministry of the Baptist and of Jesus Christ, which has hitherto been based for the most part on Luke 3:1 and John 2:20, has been in recent times completely turned upside down by Keim.[720] Whereas previously almost the only subject of contention had been whether the year 30 or the year 31 was the year of Christ’s death, Keim sets down the execution of the Baptist in the end of A.D. 34 (Jesus of Nazara, vi. 226, 232), the death of Christ at Easter of A.D. 35 (Jesus of Nazara, vi. 232). His chief argument is the following. Josephus remarked (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2) that the defeat which Herod Antipas sustained in the war with the Arabian king Aretas in A.D. 36, was considered by the people as a judgment for the execution of John the Baptist. Accordingly, says Keim, the execution must be placed as near as possible to the year 36; and since, in view of the deposition of Pilate before Easter A.D. 36, Jesus must have been put to death not later than Easter A.D. 35, and the execution of the Baptist must be put down as occurring in the end of the year 34. There is also one other reason for insisting upon this late dating of these events. The attack of Aretas upon Antipas was an act of vengeance on the part of Aretas, because his daughter had been divorced by Antipas. Hence both events must have occurred very nearly about the same time. And, seeing that the execution of the Baptist could not have occurred until after the divorce of the daughter of Aretas and the marriage with Herodias, the death of the Baptist and of Christ could not for this reason have occurred in A.D. 29 and 30 respectively.
[720] See Der geschichtliche Christus (3 Aufl. 1866), pp. 224-240; Jesus of Nazara, ii. 381, vi. 220; Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nr. 49 and 51.—Keim is supported by Holtzmann, Hausrath, Sevin, Schenkel, and in all essential points by Hitzig, who reckons indeed A.D. 36 as the year of Jesus’ death. See the summary of conclusions in Keim, vi. 226, 240; also in Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1874.—Against Keim, see especially: Wieseler, Beiträge (1869), pp. 3-16; Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, pp. 163-173.
Against this theory Wieseler particularly has urged a series of arguments which indeed are not all of a convincing character. He seeks especially as the ground of Agrippa’s residence with Antipas (see under § 18) to prove that the marriage with Herodias occurred at an earlier date. When Agrippa had been appointed by Antipas agoranomos of Tiberius, Antipas was already married to Herodias. Afterwards Agrippa was sent away by Antipas, and then stayed for a long time with Flaccus, the legate of Syria, and then went to Rome, where he, or rather his freedman Eutychus, became intimate with the city prefect Piso (Antiq. xviii. 6. 2-5). Seeing then—so argues Wieseler—that Flaccus died in A.D. 33, Piso having previously died in A.D. 32, the marriage with Herodias must have taken place before A.D. 32, Wieseler thinks in A.D. 29. But we saw already that that Piso was not the man who died in A.D. 32, but a later one, and that Flaccus possibly, indeed probably, did not die till A.D. 35 (see vol. i. pp. 360-364). By these arguments, therefore, nothing can be proved.
But the rock upon which Keim’s chronology suffered shipwreck is the definite statement of Luke 3:1, that the Baptist made his appearance before the public in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, i.e. between August A.D. 28 and August A.D. 29; which statement indeed Keim rejects as unworthy of belief. The tendency now is not to overestimate the trustworthiness of Luke, and certainly in reference to the tracing of Quirinius he has erred grievously. But it is surely impossible that in this case an error of five full years should have been made. Evidently Luke took great care in examining into this particular date. We have here therefore before us, not so much his opinion, as that of the entire Christendom of his time.[721] Can it be thought possible that all Christendom was wrong to the extent of five full years about the date of their Lord’s death? More powerful reasons must be given than those brought forward from Josephus before we can feel justified in adopting such a view.
[721] Probably the result of Luke’s investigations was this, that Christ died at Easter A.D. 30. From this datum he then reckons back one year; for he only allows one year for the public ministry (Luke 4:19-21), and so reaches the 15th year of Tiberius as the date of the public appearance of the Baptist and Christ.—In any case it is the year 30 that John 2:20, points out as the date of Christ’s death; only that John, who assumes a two years’ activity of Christ, places the beginning of His ministry in A.D. 28. Compare vol. i. p. 410.
The reasons advanced by Josephus are indeed nothing less than convincing. This is at least correct, and also generally admitted, that the defeat of Antipas in A.D. 36 took place somewhere about half a year before the death of Tiberius, in March A.D. 37. But that the people could not have regarded it as a divine judgment for the execution of the Baptist, seeing that that event was now seven years past, cannot be maintained. A couple of years more would in this matter make no difference. For Pharisaism was wont to discover such causal connections after the expiry of very long periods indeed. Further, that the divorce of the daughter of Aretas, followed by the marriage with Herodias, and the war with the Arabian king, must have followed immediately upon one another, still remains a point that cannot be proved. Josephus says expressly, that only from the divorce is to be dated the beginning of the hostility between Antipas and Aretas (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1: ὃ δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχθρας ταύτην ποιησάμενος), and that after additional reasons arose, such as contentions about boundaries. Even Keim himself admits the possibility of setting down the marriage to A.D. 32-33 (Jesus of Nazara, ii. 397). Why then not to the year 29, if once an interval of several years has to be admitted? Hausrath, who in other respects agrees with Keim, put it back as far as the year 27, and in this way deprives himself of the main ground upon which he had supported his position (Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. p. 326, 328).
Upon the whole, therefore, we feel entitled to hold by the statements of the New Testament, and to place the death of Christ at Easter A.D. 30, that of the Baptist in A.D. 29, and the marriage of Herodias somewhat earlier, perhaps in A.D. 29, perhaps even some years earlier (Gutschmid, Literarisches Centralblatt, 1874, Sp. 523, places it about A.D. 26).
The connection with Herodias brought little good to Antipas. The Arabian king Aretas could not forget that Antipas on her account had repudiated his daughter. The feud arising from this cause was increased through boundary disputes about Galaaditis,—for so we should read the name rather than Gamalitis.[722] Finally, in A.D. 36 the misunderstanding between the two neighbours broke out into the war which ended in the utter destruction of the army of Antipas.[723] The conquered monarch had now no other resource but to complain of his victorious opponent to the Emperor Tiberius.[724]
[722] The district of Gamala belonged to what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, and cannot therefore have been a subject of contention between Antipas and Aretas. On the other hand, the province of Galaaditis (Gilead) lay on the borders of their territories. But from ΓΑΛΑΑΔΙΤΙΣ the other word ΓΑΜΑΛΙΤΙΣ might easily be made. Undoubtedly the text of the passage in question (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1) is defective. Compare Keim in the Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nr. 51, col. 1218.
[723] The date is derived from this, that the defeat of Antipas, as what follows shows, took place not long—somewhere about half a year—before the death of Tiberius in March A.D. 37.
[724] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1.
When Tiberius heard of the bold proceedings of the Arabian prince, he gave Vitellius, governor of Syria, express orders to gain possession of Aretas, dead or alive. Vitellius had indeed little heart to enter on the expedition, for he was not greatly drawn toward Antipas. But he could not oppose the imperial command, and so he prepared himself for the war against Aretas. After he had ordered his army to march round about Judea to Petra, he himself went on a visit to Jerusalem, where a feast was then being celebrated, probably that of the Passover.[725] He waited in that city three days. On the fourth, he received news of the death of Tiberius, which had taken place on 16th March A.D. 37. He considered himself thereby released from his undertaking, and turned back with his army to Antioch.[726] Thus the defeat of Antipas remained unavenged.
[725] Compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 227; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. pp. 75-77.
[726] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1-3. Since the imperial legates had their office only at the personal will of the emperor, so, strictly taken, every command ceased with the death of the emperor. See Mommsen, Römische Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1. 235, ii. 2. 873.
About this time we find our Jewish tetrarch present on one occasion at the Euphrates during important negotiations between Vitellius and the king of the Parthians. But it seems that the account of this affair in Josephus is not free from error. “We know, for instance, that in the years 35 and 36 the Parthian king Artabanus had to do repeatedly with the Romans. His affairs seemed to be taking a favourable turn when, by the threats of Vitellius and the revolt of his own subjects, he was obliged to betake himself to flight into the remoter provinces. In consequence of this, Vitellius, in the summer of A.D. 36, went to the Euphrates along with the pretender Tiridates, supported by the Romans, and established him as king over the Parthians. Nevertheless, before the end of that same year, Artabanus returned, drove out Tiridates, and secured the government again to himself.[727] Subsequently Vitellius arranged a meeting with Artabanus at the Euphrates, at which Artebanus concluded a peace with the Romans, and in pledge thereof, sent his son Darius to Rome as a hostage.[728] At this meeting, according to Josephus, Herod Antipas was also present. He entertained Vitellius and Artabanus in a magnificent tent erected upon the Euphrates bridge, and hastened, as soon as the negotiations were concluded, to communicate the favourable result to the emperor,—a piece of officiousness which annoyed Vitellius at him exceedingly, since he had thereby completely anticipated his official report.[729]—Thus Josephus places this meeting in the time of Tiberius, and considers that the quarrel arising out of this between Vitellius and Herod Antipas was the reason why Vitellius, after the death of Tiberius, immediately abandoned the campaign against Aretas. But Suetonius and Dio Cassius say expressly, and the silence of Tacitus, in the sixth book of his Annals, indirectly proves, that the meeting between Vitellius and Artabanus took place under Caligula. Josephus therefore is certainly in one particular in error. The only question is, in what particular. If it is correct that Herod Antipas took part in the Parthian negotiations on the Euphrates in the time of Tiberius, then these must have been the negotiations between Vitellius and Tiridates in the summer of A.D. 36 (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 37). But if it is correct that he took part in the negotiations between Vitellius and Artabanus, it cannot have been before the time of Caligula. The latter supposition is most probably the true account of the matter. For in summer A.D. 36 Herod was engaged in the war against Aretas.[730]
[727] Tacitus, Annals, vi. 31-37, 41-44. With respect to the date, compare also: Annals, vi 38; Dio Cassius, lviii. 26; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 4.—The fixing of the date results from the statement of Tacitus.
[728] Suetonius, Caligula, 14, Vitellius, 2; Dio Cassius, lix. 27; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 5. Besides Josephus, Dio Cassius, lix. 17, and Suetonius, Caligula, 19, speak of Darius as present in Rome in A.D. 39
[729] Josephus, Antiq. xviii 4. 5.
[730] Compare Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 568; Hausrath, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 209-211. Also Ussher and Tillemont (Histoire des Empereurs, vol. i. Venise 1732, p. 139 sq., and note 4 on Caligula) express the same opinion. Compare on the Parthian history generally: Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, and the literature referred to there on p. 171 f. A list of original documents is given in Clinton, Fasti Romani, ii. 1850, pp. 243-263. On the relations between the Romans and Parthians, see also Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, Bd. i.; and Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, Bd. v. p. 339 ff.
If Antipas had his passion for Herodias to thank as the real occasion of his defeat and damage at the hand of Aretas, the ambition of this wife of his brought about at last the loss of his government and of his freedom. One of the first acts of the new Emperor Caligula on his taking the reins of government into his hands was to assign to Agrippa, the brother of Herodias, what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, together with the title of king. Agrippa at first remained still at Rome. But in the second year of Caligula, March A.D. 38 to March A.D. 39, he went to Palestine, and made his appearance there as king. The success of the adventurer, whose fortunes had once been at so low an ebb, and who had even himself sought aid at the hand of Antipas, excited the envy of Herodias, who therefore insisted upon her husband seeking also from the emperor the royal title. Herod Antipas was not very much disposed to go forth on such an errand. At last, however, he was obliged to yield to the persistent entreaty of his wife, and proceeded to Rome, accompanied by Herodias, to prosecute his suit. But they were immediately followed by a representative of Agrippa, Fortunatus, with a document containing charges against Herod Antipas, in which he was accused of old and recent offences, of having made a compact with Sejanus (who died in A.D. 31), and with the Parthian king Artabanus. In proof of these charges, his accuser pointed to the accumulation of arms made by Antipas. Both parties came at the same time before Caligula at Baiae. When the emperor had heard the petition of Antipas and the accusations against him, he asked Antipas how it was that he had made such a collection of arms. And when Antipas could give no proper account of this, Caligula credited also the other charges, deposed Antipas from his tetrarchy, and banished him to Lyons in Gaul. He wished to allow Herodias, as the sister of Agrippa, to live on her private estate. But the proud woman scorned the imperial favour, and followed her husband into his exile. As a new proof of imperial favour, the tetrarchy was conferred upon the accuser Agrippa.[731] Herod Antipas died in banishment. A confused statement in DioCassius seems to imply that he was put to death by Caligula.[732]
[731] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 7. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6. The latter passage contains some inaccuracies, which are corrected in the Antiquities, namely: (1) According to the Wars of the Jews, Agrippa himself immediately followed Antipas to Rome, where, according to the Antiquities, he sent Fortunatus; (2) According to the Wars of the Jews, Antipas was banished to Spain; but, according to the Antiquities, to Lugdunum in Gaul. The difference in reference to the place is not to be explained away, whether one understands by Lugdunum the modern Lyons (which is certainly correct), or Lugdunum Convenarum, on the northern slope of the Pyrenees, which also belonged to Gaul (so, e.g., Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 383). Lewin (Fasti Sacri, n. 1561) conjectures that the definite judgment of Caligula had not been given forth before his visit to Lyons in A.D. 40, and that Josephus confounded the place where the sentence was given with the place of banishment,—an artificial hypothesis which only burdens Josephus with a more grievous error in order to exonerate him from a less serious one. The time of the deposition of Antipas is determined partly from Antiq. xviii. 7. 1-2 compared with 6. 11, partly from xix. 8. 2. In the latter passage it is said of Agrippa: Τέτταρας μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ Γαΐου Καίσαρος ἐβασίλευσεν ἐνιαυτούς, τῆς Φιλίππου μὲν τετοαοχίας εἰς τριετίαν ἄρξας, τῷ τετάρτῳ δὲ καὶ τὴν Ἡρώδου προσειληφώς. Seeing then that Caligula reigned from March A.D. 37 till January A.D. 41, Agrippa obtained the tetrarchy of Antipas in the beginning of A.D. 40.—But, according to Antiq. xviii. 6. 11, Agrippa had returned to Palestine in the second year of Caligula, between March A D. 38 and March A.D. 39, and had the benefit of the trade winds (ἐτησίαι, Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 5, ed. Mangey, ii. 521), which from the 20th July blew for thirty days (Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii. 47). Consequently he may, since he had on his way paid a visit to Alexandria (Philo, l.c.), have arrived in Palestine about the end of September A.D. 38. Seeing then that the deposition of Antipas was closely connected with the appearance of Agrippa, it would seem that it must have taken place, if not in A.D. 38, at least in A.D. 39. In fact, it can be proved that it actually occurred not earlier and not later than the summer of A.D. 39. Not earlier: for the forty-third year of Antipas, of which we have coins extant, only began with 1st Nisan 792 A.U.C., A.D. 39. But also not later. Caligula was absent from Rome from autumn A.D. 39 till 31st August A.D. 40 on an expedition to Gaul, Germany, and Britain (Dio Cassius, lix. 21-25; Suetonius, Caligula, 17, 43-49: his entry into Rome “natali suo,” i.e. 31st August, see Suetonius, Caligula, 8). Seeing then that the deposition of Antipas took place while Caligula was at Baiae, and seeing also, according to Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2, that it cannot have occurred after the German campaign, it must have happened before that campaign, i.e. before autumn A.D. 39. It is indeed impossible that it should have taken place only after the German campaign, for Agrippa, from autumn A.D. 40 till Caligula’s death, resided again near to the emperor (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 35 ff., ed. Mangey, ii. 584 ff.; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 7 ff.; Dio Cassius, lix. 24; compare also § 17 c. and § 18 of the present work), whereas at the time of the deposition of Antipas he was in Palestine. It is also shown to be impossible by this other fact, that, according to Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 41, ed. Mangey, ii. 593, Agrippa was in autumn A.D. 40 already in possession of Galilee. Compare also Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 4, from which it may be concluded that Tiberias then no longer belonged to Herod Antipas. In A.D. 39 Caligula was twice in Campania (at Baiae and Puteoli). The one visit is referred to in Dio Cassius, lix. 13; the other, in Dio Cassius, lix. 17. See also Suetonius, Caligula, 19. After his second absence, however, he was again at Rome on the occasion of his birthday, 31st August (Dio Cassius, lix. 20; Suetonius, Caligula, 26), after which he went forth on the German expedition. The deposition of Antipas took place at Baiae therefore before the 31st August A.D. 39. But, seeing that Agrippa only obtained the tetrarchy of Antipas in the beginning of A.D. 40 (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2), we may fairly assume, with Noris (Opp. ii. 622 sq.) and Wieseler (Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 130), an interval of several months to have occurred between the deposition of Antipas and the conferring of his tetrarchy upon Agrippa, and that this latter event did not take place until the time of the Gallo-German campaign of Caligula.—Compare generally: Noris, De nummo Herodis Antipae (Opera, ii. col. 646-665); Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, pp. 307-315.—On the coins of Herod bearing what is supposed to be the year number 44, which would require an extension of his reign down to A.D. 40, see above, vol. i. p. 466, and the present vol. pp. 20, 21. Were the existence of this coin well established, we should be obliged, with Lewin, to assign the deposition of Antipas, not to the period of Caligula’s residence at Baiae, but to the period of his Gallic campaign, and so to assume a serious error in Josephus.
[732] Dio Cassius, lix. 8 (Caligula): Ἀγρίππαν τὸν τοῦ Ἡρώδου ἔγγονον λύσας τε … καὶ τῇ τοῦ πάππου ἀρχῇ προστάξας, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἢ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν οὐχ ὅτι τῶν πατρῴων ἀπεστέρησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατέσφαξε. Although the relationship is not very clearly expressed, the reference can only be to Herod Antipas. To execute those whom he banished was a common custom with Caligula, Suetonius, Caligula, 28; Dio Cassius, lix. 18; Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 21, ed. Mangey, ii. 543; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1562.—According to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6, Antipas died in banishment in Spain. Instead of Spain we are to read, according to Antiq. xviii. 7. 2, Lugdunum in Gaul. For one has no right so to combine contradictory statements of Josephus that a later removal of the banished one from Lyons to Spain may be assumed.
c. ARCHELAUS, B.C. 4-A.D. 6. HIS TERRITORY UNDER ROMAN PROCURATORS, A.D. 6-A.D. 41
SOURCES
JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xvii. 13, xviii. 1-4. 8; Wars of the Jews, ii 7-10.
PHILO, De legatione ad Cajum (Opera, ed. Mangey, ii. 545-600). On the coins, see below.
LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 449-457, vii. 235-257.
GEIKIE, Life and Words of Christ, i. 263-272.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 253-271, 315-317, 341-344.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 562 f., 573-583.
HAUSRATH, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 287-308, ii. 199-270.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 253-262, ii. 223, vi. 79, 183, 227; and art. “Archelaus” in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 38-40.
GERLACH, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp. 30-32; Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, pp. 44-48, 53-65.
WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 82 f. (Archelaus), and ii. 261-263 (Pilatus).
BRANN, Die Söhne des Herodes, 1873 (reprint from the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums), pp. 1-16.
LEWIN, Fasti Sacra, ad ann., 4 B.C.-41 A.D.
MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v. 508 ff.
KELLNER, Die römische Statthalter von Syrien und Judäa. 2. Art. Die kaiserlichen Procuratoren von Judäa (Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie, 1888, p. 630 ff.).
KELLNER, Politische und administrative Zustände von Palästina zur Zeit Christi (Der Katholik, 1888, i. pp. 47-63). A summary of the history during the time of Pompey.
MENKE, Bibelatlas, Bl. V. Special map of Judea and neighbouring countries in the time of Pontius Pilate.
Judea proper with Samaria and Idumea (including the large cities of Caesarea, Samaria, Joppa, and Jerusalem, but excluding Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos) was in the partition assigned to Archelaus, the elder[733] brother of Antipas, not indeed, as Herod had intended, with the title of king, but only with that of an ethnarch.[734] Yet Augustus promised him the kingdom if he should prove himself to be worthy of it.[735] Archelaus also, like Antipas, named himself on the coins and elsewhere by the family name of Herod.[736]
[733] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 32. 7, 33. 7.
[734] He is inaccurately styled βασιλεύς in Matthew 2:22, and in Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3.
[735] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3.
[736] By Josephus he is never indeed called Herod, but he is so called by Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27. That the coins with the inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ belong to him cannot be doubted, for no other Herodian besides him bore the title of ethnarch. This was first of all recognised by Scipio Maffeius, Antt. Gall. p. 113 (quoted by Eckhel, iii. 484). Eckhel is at least inclined to agree with him (“Forte verior est conjectura Scipionis Maffeii,” etc.). It is now admitted by all scholars. Compare on these coins generally: Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53, 57 f., ii. 32 f.; De Saulcy, Recherches, p. 133 sq.; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, p. 73 f.; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 91-95; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 25 f.; De Sauley, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 248-250; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, 45 sq.; Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 114-118.
Among the sons of Herod he procured for himself the worst reputation. His rule was violent and tyrannical[737] He set up and removed the high priests at his pleasure.[738] He gave special offence by his marriage with Glaphyra, daughter of the Cappadocian king Archelaus. She had been married first to Alexander, the half-brother of Archelaus, executed in B.C. 7. See vol. i. p. 456 of this work. After his death she was married to Juba, king of Mauritania.[739] Upon the dissolution of this marriage,[740] Glaphyra lived in her father’s house. There Archelaus became acquainted with her, fell in love with her, and took her to he his wife, for he divorced his own wife Mariamme. Seeing that Glaphyra had children by Alexander, the marriage was unlawful, and therefore gave great offence.[741] The marriage was not indeed of long duration, for Glaphyra died soon after her arrival in Judea,[742] after having had a remarkable dream, in which her first husband, Alexander, appeared to her, and made known to her her approaching death.[743]
[737] Ὠμότης καὶ τυραννίς are charged against him in Antiq. xvii. 13. 2. Compare also Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 3.
[738] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 1.
[739] It is this same one who made himself known as a writer. Reports about him and the fragments of his writings are collected by Müller, Fragmenta Histor. Graec. iii. 465-484. Compare also Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, 2 ed. iii. 578 sq.: Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 345; Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 185 f.; La Blanchère, De rege Juba regis Jubae filio, Paris 1883, and the literature referred to there.—Juba as a child (βρέφος, App.; κομιδῆ νήπιος;, Plut.) was led in triumph by Caesar in B.C. 46 (Appian, ii. 101; Plutarch, Caesar, c. 55). In B.C. 29 he obtained from Augustus his father’s kingdom of Numidia (Dio Cassius, li. 15). Four years later, in B.C. 25, Augustus gave him instead of that the lands of Bocchus and Boguas (Mauritania Tingitana and Caesariensis), and a part of Gätulia (Dio Cassius, liii. 26). He was still living in A.D. 18 (Müller, iii. 466), and, as is proved by the evidence of the coins, did not die before A.D. 23 (Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. i. 278; Marquardt, Römisches Staats-verwaltung, i. 1881, p. 482; Rühl, Jahrbb. für class. Philol. 117 Bd. 1878, pp. 542-544. Rühl succeeds in proving, in opposition to Niese in Hermes, xiii. 1878, p. 35 f., Anm., that Juba died in A.D. 23. Schiller in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, xv. 497 f.; Paul Meyer, Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. ii. 1879, p. 72; Vogel, Philologus, Bd. 41, 1882, p. 517; La Blanchère, De rege Juba, p. 85 [all in favour of A.D. 23].—The marriage with Glaphyra occurred probably between B.C. 1 and A.D. 4, if the conjecture of Müller is correct that Juba accompanied C. Caesar on his Oriental expedition, and on that occasion became acquainted with Glaphyra.—An inscription at Athens, filled up as follows by Mommsen, probably refer to Glaphyra (Ephemeris epigr. i. 277 sq.=Corp. Inscr. Attic. iii. 1, n. 549):—
[740] Josephus says “after the death of Juba,” which, however, is wrong. See previous note.
[741] Compare generally Antiq. xvii. 13. 1 and 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 4.
[742] Μετʼ ὀλίγον τοῦ ἀφίξεως χρόνον, Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 4.
[743] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 4.
Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ [ὁ δῆμος]
βασίλισσαν [Γλαφύραν]
Ἀρχελάου δυγ[ατέρα, Ἰόβα]
γυναῖκα [ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα].
It will almost go without saying that Archelaus as son of Herod engaged upon great building enterprises. The palace at Jericho was restored in the most magnificent style. An aqueduct was built to lead the water necessary for the palmgroves, which he had laid out anew in the plain north of Jericho, from the village of Neara. He also founded a city, and called it in honour of himself Archelais.[744]
[744] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 1.—On the palm-groves near Jericho, see vol. i. p. 423; on the village of Archelais, see Div. II. vol. i. p. 122. It lay, according to the tabula Peutinger. (ed. Konr. Miller, 1888), on the road from Jericho to Scythopolis, 12 Roman miles north of Jericho, 12+12 Roman miles south of Scythopolis. Seeing that the actual distance between was somewhere about 15 Roman miles, an error has somewhere crept into the figures. If we assume that the statement of the distance between Jericho and Archelais as 12 Roman miles is correct, then Archelais must have been a little south of Phasaelis, not north, as is generally supposed. The following fact is in favour of such a view. Archelais, like Phasaelis, was celebrated for its palm-groves (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xiii. 4. 44). We may therefore actually seek the palm-groves anew laid out by Archelaus, for which he brought water from Neara, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Archelais founded by him. But Neara is most probably identical with the place called by Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 283) Νοοράθ, which was only 5 Roman miles distant from Jericho. Therefore also Archelias would not be too far from it.
But these beautiful and useful undertakings could not reconcile his subjects to his misgovernment. After tolerating his rule for more than nine years, a deputation of the Jewish and Samaritan aristocracy set out for Rome, in order to lay their complaints against him before Augustus. The points in their accusation must have been very serious; for the emperor felt himself obliged to summon Archelaus to Rome, and, after having heard him, to depose him from his government, and banish him to Vienne in Gaul in A.D. 6. To him also, as to his wife, his fate had been foretold by a remarkable dream.[745]
[745] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 2-3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 3; Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27. Without mentioning the name of Archelaus, Strabo, xvi. 2. 46, p. 765, says that a son of Herod ἐν φυγῇ διετέλει παρὰ τοῖςʼ Αλλόβριξι Γαλάταις λαβὼν οἰκησιν. Vienne, south of Lyons, was the capital of the Allobrogi.—As regards the chronology, Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27, places the banishment of Archelaus in the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius, A.D. 6. With this agree the statements of Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 2, that it occurred in the tenth year, or, according to the Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 3, in the ninth year of Archelaus.—According to a statement of Jerome, the grave of Archelaus was pointed out near Bethlehem (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 101: “scd et propter eandem Bethleem regis quondam Judaeae Archelai tumulus ostenditur”). If this be correct, he must have died in Palestine.
The territory of Archelaus was taken under immediate Roman rule, for it was attached to the province of Syria, but received a governor of its own from the equestrian order.[746] In consequence of this arrangement the condition of Judea became essentially changed. Herod the Great and his sons had in spite of all their friendship for the Romans considerable respect for and understanding of the national traditions and peculiarities of the Jews, so that they, apart from individual exceptions, did not wantonly wound the most sacred sensibilities of the people. Common prudence demanded in regard to such matters care and consideration. The Romans, on the other hand, had scarcely any appreciation of what was peculiar to the Jewish nationality. As the religious views of the Pharisees and the accumulation of traditions which encompassed the daily life of the people like a net were altogether unknown to the Romans, they could not at all understand how a whole people would offer the most persistent resistance even unto death, and would suffer annihilation on account of merely ceremonial rites and what seemed matters of indifference. The Jews again saw in the simplest rules of administration, such as the proposal of a census made at the very beginning, an encroachment upon the most sacred rights of the people, and from day to day the feeling more and more gained ground that the immediate government of the Romans, which at the death of Herod they had wished for,[747] was irreconcilable with the principles of the theocracy. Thus, even had there been the best of intentions on both sides, the relations inevitably became strained and ultimately hostile. But this good-will was only partially exhibited. Those at the head of the government, with the exception of the times of Caligula, were indeed ready on their part to make concessions and to exercise forbearance in a very large measure. But their good intentions were always rendered nugatory by the perversity of the procurators, not infrequently also by gross miscarriage of justice on the part of these officials. Those subordinate officers, like all petty governors, were usually puffed up by a consciousness of their absolute authority, and by their insolent demeanour at last drove the oppressed and burdened people to such a pitch of excitement that they rushed headlong with wild fanaticism into a war that plainly involved annihilation.
[746] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1.
[747] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 2.
Seeing that the political affairs of Judea during the period A.D. 6-41 were in all essential respects the same as those of Palestine generally during the period A.D. 44-66, in the following exposition we take the two periods together, and make use of materials from the one period as well as from the other.[748]
[748] Compare Sibranda, De statu Judaeae provinciae sub procuratoribus, Franecq. 1698 (also in Thesaurus novus theol.-philol., edd. Hase et Iken, ii. 529 sqq.).—Krenkel, art. “Verwaltung” in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 601 f.; Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Römer;” Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, v. 509 ff.; and generally the literature referred to on p. 38 of this volume.
Judea, and subsequently all Palestine, was not in the strict sense of the term incorporated with the province of Syria, but had a governor of its own of equestrian rank, who stood only to a certain extent in dependence upon the imperial legate of Syria.[749] It therefore belonged to the third class of imperial provinces, according to Strabo’s classification.[750] And this third class is to be regarded as an exception to the rule; for most of the imperial provinces were, just like the senatorial provinces, administered by men of senatorial rank; the greater provinces, like that of Syria, by men who had been consuls, the smaller ones, by those who had been praetors.[751] Only a few particular provinces were in an exceptional manner placed under governors of equestrian rank, namely, those in which, on account of special tenacity in adhering to peculiar national customs, or on account of the rudeness and savage state of the country, the government could not be carried on by the usual methods. The best known example is that of Egypt. Elsewhere there were also territories inhabited by a still semi-barbarous people which were administered in this manner.[752]
[749] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1: τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης ἐπίτροπός τις [l. τῆς] ἱππικῆς παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις τάξεως Κωπώνιος πέμπεται.—Antt. xviii. 1. 1: Κωπώνιος … τάγματος τῶν ἱππέων, ἡγησόμενος Ἰουδαίων τῇ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐξουσίᾳ.
[750] Strabo, xvii. 3. 25, p. 840: εἰς ἃς μὲν πέμπει τοὺς ἐπιμελησομένους ὑπκτικοὺς ἄνδρας, εἰς ἃς δὲ στρατηγικούς, εἰς ἃς δὲ καὶ ἱππικούς.
[751] For further details, see vol. i. p. 347 of this work.—The designation of the imperial governor of Syria as “proconsul,” as is done by many theologians (e.g. Gerlach, Hausrath, Krenkel), is an offence against the very rudiments of Roman antiquities. Only during the time of Pompey, down to B.C. 48, was Syria governed by “proconsuls.”
[752] The most important, besides Egypt, are mentioned by Tacitus, History, i. 11: “duae Mauritaniae, Raetia, Norieum, Thracia et quae aliae procuratoribus cohibentur.” A complete list is given by Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 419-423.—Compare also, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 554 f.; Liebenam, Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 1886, pp. 26-30.
The usual title for such an equestrian governor was procurator, ἐπίτροπος.[753] It seems indeed that Augustus, not only in Egypt, but elsewhere as well, preferred the title praefactus, ἔπαρχος.[754] Very soon, however, at farthest in the time of Claudius, except in the case of Egypt, the title procurator had become the prevailing one. Josephus, as a rule, designates the governor of Judea ἐπίτροπος, sometimes ἔπαρχος or ἡγεμών.[755] In the New Testament, ἡγεμών=praeses, is the term usually employed.[756] That ἐπίτροπος (procurator) is the correct title may be also proved by witnesses of another kind.[757] In general this title was used for all imperial finance officers, while praefactus was more of a military title. Such finance procurators were found also in all other provinces, in the imperial as well as the senatorial provinces.[758] They were chosen not only from the equestrian order, but even from among the freedmen of the emperor.[759] Those procurators, on the other hand, who had to administer a province, on account of the military command that was necessarily connected with such an appointment, were chosen exclusively from the ranks of the equestrians. It was an unheard of novelty when under Claudius the office of procurator of Judea was given to a freedman, Felix (see below under § 19).
[753] Compare generally on the Praesidial-Procurators: Mascovius, De procuratore Caesaris, Altorf. 1724 (also in his Opuscula jurid. et philol. 1776, pp. 1-30); Rein, art. “Procurator Caesaris” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 88-90; Winer, Biblisches Realwörterbuch, ii. 276 ff. (art. “Procuratoren”); Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. 1, 1881, p. 554 ff.—The most comprehensive treatment of the subject is given by Hirschfeld, Die ritterlichen Provinzialstatthalter (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 417-442).
[754] See with reference to this matter, Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte, 1889, pp. 425-427.
[755] Ἐπίτροπος in the following passages: Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, 9. 2, 11. 6 (in the parallel passage, Antiq. xix. 9. 2: ἔπαρχος); Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8. ἐπιτροπεύων, Antiq. xx. 5. 1. ἐπιτροπή, Antiq. xx. 5. 1 fin., 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1, 14. 1.—ἔπαρχος, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2, xix. 9. 2 (in parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6: ἐπίτροπος).—ἡγησόμενος, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1. ἡγεμών, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1. προστησόμενος, Antiq. xx. 7. 1.—ἐπιμελητής, Antiq. xviii. 4. 2.—ἱππάρχης, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10 fin.
[756] Matthew 27:2; Matthew 27:11; Matthew 27:14-15; Matthew 27:21; Matthew 27:27; Matthew 28:14; Luke 3:1; Luke 20:20; Acts 23:24; Acts 23:26; Acts 23:33; Acts 24:1; Acts 24:10; Acts 26:30.—ἡλεμών means generally praeses, and is therefore used of governors of other orders.
[757] The decree of the Emperor Claudius in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 2: Κουσπίῳ Φάδῳ τῷ ἐμῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ.—Tacit. Annal. xv. 44: “Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat.” Ibid. xii. 54: “praedas ad procuratores referre … jus statuendi etiam de procuratoribus.” Cumanus and Felix are intended.—The material brought together by Hirschfeld in Sitzungsberichte, p. 425 f., seems to me insufficient to ground upon it the conclusion “that in Judea also in the earlier days of the empire the title of praefactus was used,” although this may be admitted as possible.
[758] Marquardt, i. 555 f.
[759] Compare on these finance procurators (besides the literature given in note 21): Eichhorst, Quaestionum epigraphicarum de procuratoribus imperatorum Romanorum specimen, 1861; Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Bd. 1, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian, 1887 (a well-informing treatise); Liebenam, Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgeschickte des römischen Kaiserreichs, i., Die Laufbahn der Procuratoren bis auf die Zeit Diocletians, 1886.—Much material is supplied in the Indices to the Corp. Inscr. Lat. Compare also Corp. Inscr. Graec., Index, p. 36 (s.v. ἐπίτροπος Σεβαστοῦ). Haenel, Corpus Legum, Index, s.v. procurator; Dirksen, Manuals latinitatis fordium iuris civ. Rom. (1837), s.v. procurator.
The procurators of Judea seem to have been subordinate to the governor of Syria only to this extent, that it was the right and duty of the governor to interfere in the exercise of his supreme power in cases of necessity.[760] Writers have indeed sometimes expressed themselves as if Judea had been incorporated into the province of Syria. But they do not continue consistent to such a view.[761] The investing the procurator with a military command, and with independent jurisdiction, of itself conferred upon him a position, in virtue of which he was, in regard to ordinary transactions within the limits of his province, as independent as the governors of other provinces. On the other hand, the governor of Syria had the right, according to his own discretion, to interfere if he had reason to fear revolutionary uprisings or the appearance of other serious difficulties. He would then take command in Judea as the superior of the procurator.[762] Whether this superior authority went so far that he might even call the procurator to account seems questionable, since in the two cases in which this happened, the governor concerned had been probably entrusted with a special commission.[763]
[760] Compare Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 509, Anm.; Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 440-442.
[761] Josephus says, Antiq. xvii. fin.: τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας ὑποτελοῦς προσνεμηθείσης τῇ Σύρων. But when he also, in Antiq. xviii. 1. 1, calls Judea a προσθήκη τῆς Συρίας, he evidently does not mean to describe it as a properly integral part, but only as an appendix or annex to the province of Syria. According to the Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, the territory of Archelaus had been made into a province, therefore with the privilege of independence, τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης. In reference also to the state of matters after Agrippa’s death, Josephus affirms distinctly that the governor of Syria was not set over the kingdom of Agrippa (Antiq. xix. 9. 2), while he immediately afterwards states that this governor had interfered in the affairs of that country (Antiq. xx. 1. 1).—Tacitus refers, in A.D. 17, to Syria and Judea as two provinces alongside of one another (Annals, ii. 42: “provinciae Suria atque Judaea), and says of the arrangements after the death of King Agrippa, History, v. 9: “Claudius … Judaeam provinciam equitibus Romanis aut libertis permisit.” When, therefore, he reports this same fact in another place (Annals, xii. 23) in these words: “Ituraeique et Judaei defunctis regibus, Sohaemo atque Agrippa, provinciae Suriae additi;” that word additi is to be understood in the same way as the προσθήκη of Josephus. In no case should any one conclude, as Bormann (see under § 18 fin.) has done, because Tacitus introduces this statement first in A.D. 49, when he should have previously brought it forward in A.D. 44, that affairs had undergone a change in A.D. 49.—Suetonius also wrongly designates Judea a province (Suetonius, Claudius, 28: “Felicem, quem cohortibus et alis provinciaeque Judaeae praeposuit”).
[762] Examples: Petronius (Antiq. xviii. 8. 2-9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 1-5), Cassius Longinus (Antiq. xx. 1. 1), Cestius Gallus (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 3, 16. 1, 18. 9 ff.).
[763] Of Vitellins, who deposed Pilate (Antiq. xviii. 4. 2), Tacitus (Annals, vi. 32) says: “Cunctis quae apud orientem parabantur L. Vitellium praefecit.” Of Ummidius Quadratus, who sent Cumanus to Rome (Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 6), it is expressly said in Tacitus (Annals, xii. 54): “Claudius … jus statuendi etiam de procuratoribus dederat.”
The residence of the procurator of Judea was not at Jerusalem, but at Caesarea.[764] Since the dwelling of the commander-in-chief or governor was called praetorium, the πραιτώριον τοῦ Ἡρώδου in Caesarea (Acts 23:35) was nothing else than a palace built by Herod, which served as a residence for the procurator.—On special occasions, especially during the chief Jewish feasts, when, on account of the crowds of people that streamed into Jerusalem, particularly careful oversight was necessary, the procurator went up to Jerusalem, and resided then in what had been the palace of Herod.[765] The praetorium at Jerusalem, in which Pilate was staying at the time of the trial and condemnation of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28; John 18:33; John 19:9), is therefore just the well-known palace of Herod, on the west side of the city.[766] It was not only a princely dwelling, but at the same time a strong castle, in which at times (during the rebellion in B.C. 4, and again in A.D. 66) large detachments of troops could maintain their position against the assaults of the whole mass of the people.[767] Hence, also, during the residence there of the procurator, the detachment of troops accompanying him had their quarters within its walls (Mark 15:16).
[764] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 2 (Pilate); Antiq. xx. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 2 (Cumanus); Acts 23:23-33 (Felix); Acts 25:1-13 (Festus); Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4 fin., 15. 6 fin., 17. 1 (Florus). Tacitus, History, ii. 78: “Caesaream … Judaeae caput.”
[765] Josephns, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 8, 15. 5; Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, sec. 38 (ed. Mangey, ii. 589 sq.).
[766] Compare the art. “Richthaue” in Winer, Realworterbuch, and Riehm, Handwörterbuch.
[767] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 2-3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 1-4, 17. 7-8. Compare the description, Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 3-4.
With reference to the military arrangements, it deserves specially to be remembered that the Roman army of the days of the empire was divided into two divisions of a thoroughly distinct kind: the legions and the auxiliaries.[768] The legions formed the proper core of the troops, and consisted only of Romau citizens, for those provincials who served in the legions had obtained citizen rights. Each legion formed a compact whole of ten cohorts, or sixty centuries, altogether embracing from 5000 to 6000 men.[769] The auxiliary troops consisted of provincials who, at least in the early days of the empire, did not as a rule possess the right of citizenship. Their arms were lighter and less harmonious than those of the legions; often in this they were allowed to follow their own national usages. Their infantry was formed into cohorts, whose strength varied from 500 to 1000 men; the cavalry was formed into aloe, of similarly varying strength.[770] Cohorts and alae were named after the nation from which they had been recruited.[771]
[768] Compare on the composition and nature of the Roman army generally, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 307-591.
[769] Marquardt, ii. 359, 441.
[770] Ibid. 453-457.
[771] So, to give only a few examples from Palestine and Syria, “Cohors Ascalonitarum, Canathenorum, Damascenorum, Ituraeorum, Sebastenorum, Tyriorum.” Other examples in rich abundance are given in the indices to Corp. Intscr. Lat. A collection of materials is given by Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. v. 164-200.
In regard to the provinces administered by procurators, it may, as a rule, be assumed that in them, and under the command of the procurator, there would be only auxiliary troops.[772] This rule is also confirmed by the history of Judea. There were legions only in Syria; in the time of Auguetus three, from the time of Tiberius four.[773] But in Judea, down to the time of Vespasian, there were only auxiliary troops, and, indeed, mostly such as had been raised in the country itself.[774] The honour and burden of this levy lay only on the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. The Jews were exempted from military service. This is abundantly proved to have been the state of matters, at least, from the time of Caesar,[775] and, from all that we positively know about the Palestinian troops down to the days of Vespasian, may also be assumed as certain throughout the imperial period. Remarkable as this unequal treatment of the population may appear to us, it is in thorough correspondence with what is otherwise known regarding the Roman procedure in the conscription. Indeed, in regard to the use made of the inhabitants and the confidence reposed in them, the provinces were treated in very diverse ways and varying measures in the matter of military service.[776]
[772] Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 431-437; Marquardt, ii. 518.
[773] Three legions under Augustus (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 10. 9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 1, 5. 1) ; four under Tiberius (Tacitus, Annals, iv. 5). Seeing that in Egypt under Augustus there were three legions, and under Tiberius only two, see Strabo, xvii. 1. 12, p. 797; Tacitus, Annals, iv. 5, there was meanwhile one of the Egyptian legions transferred to Syria (Pfitzner, p. 24, conjectures that it was the Legio XII. Fulm.).—Of the four Syrian legions only two are known with certainty : the Legio VI. Ferrata (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 79, 81, xiii. 38, 40, xv. 6, 26) and the Legio X. Fretensis (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 57, xiii. 40, xv. 6). The other two were probably the Legio 111. Gallica (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 40, xv. 6, 26 ; it had, according to Tacitus, History, iii. 24, already fought under Mark Antony against the Parthians) and the Legio XII. Fulminata (Tacitus, Annals, xv. 6, 7, 10, 26).—See especially Mommsen, Res gestae div. Augusti, 2 ed. 1883, p. 68, note 2. Generally: Grotefend, art. “Legio” in Pauly’s Real-Encydopaedie, iv. 868-901; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 430 ff.; Stille, Historia legionum auxiliorumque inde ab excessu divi Augusti usque ad Vespasiani tempora, Kiliae 1877; Pfitzner, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserlegionen von Augustus bis Hadrianus, Leipzig 1881.
[774] Compare in reference to the garrisoning of Judea down to the time of Vespasian, Schürer, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, xviii. 1875, pp. 413-425; Egli, Zeitschrift, xxvii. 1884, pp. 10-22; Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 1884, p. 217, Anm.; Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 433 f.
[775] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6: καὶ ὅπως μηδεὶς μήτε ἄρχων μήτε στρατηγὸς ἢ πρεσβευτὴς ἐν τοῖς ὅροις τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐνιστᾷ [codd. ἀνιστᾷ] συμμαχίαν. Also Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 501, Anm.—The Jews of Asia Minor were freed from the conscription for military service of the Pompeians in B.C. 49 (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 13, 14, 16, 18, 19), and this remission was confirmed to them six years later, in B.C. 43, by Dolabella (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 11-12). Compare Div. II. vol. ii. 264.
[776] Compare Mommsen, “Die Conscriptionsordnung der römischen Kaieerzeit” (Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp. 1-79, 210-234).
For the period A.D. 6-41 we are without any direct information about the troops stationed in Judea. But it is highly probable that the Sebastians, i.e. the soldiers drafted in the region of Sebaste or Samaria, whom we meet with subsequently, constituted even then a considerable portion of the garrison. In the struggles which followed the death of Herod in B.C. 4, the best equipped part of the troops of Herod fought on the side of the Romans, namely, the Σεβαστηνοὶ τρισχίλιοι, under the command of Rufus and Gratus, the former of whom commanded the cavalry, the latter the infantry.[777] The troops thus proved would be undoubtedly retained by Archelaus, and it is highly probable that, after his deposition in A.D. 6, they would be taken over by the Romans, then, from A.D. 41 to A.D. 44, by Agrippa, and after his death again by the Romans. The following also speaks in favour of this supposition. At the death of Agrippa in A.D. 44, the troops of the king stationed in Caesarea, which were Καισαρεῖς καὶ Σεβαστηνοί, gave expression in a very unseemly manner to their joy at the death of the ruler that had shown himself friendly to the Jews. In order to show respect to the memory of Agrippa, the emperor ordered these troops, namely, τὴν ἴλην τῶν Καισαρέων καὶ τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν καὶ τὰς πέντε σπείρας (therefore an ala of cavalry and five cohorts), to be sent by way of punishment to Pontus. On their presenting a petition, however, it was agreed that they should remain in Judea, from which they were first removed by Vespasian.[778] From this it appears that the troops of Agrippa were certainly taken over by the Romans.[779] From this it may be inferred that in the same way they were taken over after the deposition of Archelaus. It is also somewhat remarkable that the one ala of cavalry and five cohorts of infantry, if we reckon the latter at 500 men, would make together a force of 3000 men, which is the same number as is ascribed to the Sebastian troops of B.C. 4.—During the period A.D. 44-66 these troops are often referred to. The procurator Cumanus led the ala Sebastenorum and four cohorts of infantry from Caesarea against the Jews.[780] During the struggles between the Jewish and Gentile inhabitants of Caesarea, the latter boasted of the fact that the Roman troops in Caesarea consisted in great part of Caesareans and Sebastians.[781] Finally, in A.D. 67, Vespasian was able to draft into his army from Caesarea five cohorts and one ala of cavalry;[782] therefore the same detachments as were there in A.D. 44. Probably also the Sebasteni so often referred to on the inscriptions are identical with our Sebastian troops.[783] Also the σπεῖρα Σεβαστή, which at the time of the imprisonment of Paul, about A.D. 60, lay in Caesarea (Acts 27:1), is undoubtedly one of the five cohorts which we hear about from Josephus. Many theologians, however, have erroneously come to the conclusion that the expression σπεῖρα Σεβαστή is synonymous with σπεῖρα Σεβαστηνῶν. This is not possible. Σεβαστή is rather an exact translation of Augusta, a title of honour very frequently bestowed upon auxiliary troops. The cohort in question was therefore probably called cohors Augusta Sebastenorum. In Caesarea it was called simply σπεῖρα Σεβαστή, since this sufficed to distinguish it from others.[784]—It is, on the other hand, remarkable, after other results we have reached, that in Caesarea, about A.D. 40, a σπεῖρα Ἰταλική should have been stationed (Acts 10:1), by which probably a cohort of Roman citizens of Italy is to be understood.[785] Such a band would naturally not have served in Caesarea during the period A.D. 41-44 under the Jewish king Agrippa. But even in reference to a later period, it is after the above made investigations not probable. The story of the centurion Cornelius lies, therefore, in this respect under suspicion, the circumstances of a later period having been transferred back to an earlier period. That at some time or other a cohors Italica was in Syria is made perfectly clear by the evidence of an inscription (see note [786]
[777] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 4, 4. 2-3. Compare Antiq. xvii. 10. 3 ff.
[778] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1-2.
[779] Analagous cases are also known elsewhere. See Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 51, 217 f.
[780] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1: τὴν τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν ἴλην καὶ πεζῶν τέσσαρα τάγματα; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 5: μίαν ἴλην ἱππἑων καλουμίνην Σεβαστηνῶν.
[781] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 7: μέγα φρονοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ τοὺς πλείστους τῶν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίους ἐκεῖσε στρατευομένων Καισαρεῖς εἶναι καὶ Σεβαστηνούς. In the parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 7, “Syrians” is the word in the received text.
[782] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2.
[783] We meet with: ala I. Flavia Sabastenorum (Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 390, n. 699), ala gemina Sebastenorum (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n. 9358, 9359), ala Sebastenorum (Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 469, n. 1000), cohors I. Sabastenorum (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 2916, whether the figure I. is the correct reading is, according to another copy, doubtful; see Ephemeris epigr. iv. p. 113, n. 370).—Although the name of Sebaste was given to other cities, it is yet probable, on account of the material afforded by Josephus, that these troops were drawn from the Palestinian city. So also Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 217. The conjecture there ventured upon by Mommsen, that among the five cohorts in Caesarea there were a cohors Ascalonitarum and a cohors Canathenorum is, however, impossible, since these five cohorts for the most part consisted of Caesareans and Sebastians.
[784] Further details on these matters will be found in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, pp. 416-419.—The title of honour, Augusta, which was borne by three legions, is rendered by the geographer Ptolemy by the word Σεβαστή (Ptolemy, ii. 3. 30, iv. 3. 30, ii. 9. 18). It is therefore not to be wondered at that this same title should have been similarly rendered in the case of an auxiliary cohort.—When the ala referred to by Josephus, although it consisted of Caesareans and Sebastians (Antiq. xix. 9. 2), is yet only called ala Sebastenorum (Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 5), so likewise with the cohorts of similar composition the same meaning may be assumed, therefore cohortes Sebastenorum. The inscriptions also favour this view.
[785] Compare Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, pp. 422-425.—On inscriptions we meet with (see proofs in Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 249): “Cohors I. Italica civium Romanorum voluntariorum” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n. 181); “Cohors miliaria Italica voluntariorum quae est in Syria” (Gruter, Corp. Inscr. p. 434, n. 1); “Cohere 11 Italica” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 3528).—In a passage in Arrian (“Acies contra Alonas” in Arriani Scripta minora, ed. Hercher, 1854) the expression ἡ σπεῖρα ἡ Ἰταλική is interchanged with οἱ Ἰταλοί (ed. Blancard, pp. 102 and 99). According to this and according to the first-named inscription, it is probable that a cohors Italica consisted of Roman citizens of Italy.
[786] Compare Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, pp. 422-425.—On inscriptions we meet with (see proofs in Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 249): “Cohors I. Italica civium Romanorum voluntariorum” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n. 181); “Cohors miliaria Italica voluntariorum quae est in Syria” (Gruter, Corp. Inscr. p. 434, n. 1); “Cohere 11 Italica” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 3528).—In a passage in Arrian (“Acies contra Alonas” in Arriani Scripta minora, ed. Hercher, 1854) the expression ἡ σπεῖρα ἡ Ἰταλική is interchanged with οἱ Ἰταλοί (ed. Blancard, pp. 102 and 99). According to this and according to the first-named inscription, it is probable that a cohors Italica consisted of Roman citizens of Italy.
We have hitherto become acquainted only with the state of the garrison of Caesarea. In other cities and towns of Palestine there were also small garrisons. At the outbreak of the Jewish war in A.D. 66, we find, for example, a Roman garrison in the fortified castle of Jericho and in Machärus.[787] Throughout Samaria such detachments were stationed.[788] In the Great Plain there was a decurio;[789] in Ascalon (which, however, did not belong to the domains of the procurator) there were a cohort and an ala.[790] Vespasian, in the winter of A.D. 67-68, placed garrisons in all conquered villages and towns; those in the former under the command of Decurions, those in the latter under the command of Centurions.[791] This was indeed an extraordinary proceeding, which we are not to regard as the rule in time of peace.
[787] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6.
[788] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 32: φρουραῖς ἡ Σαμαρεῖτις ὅλη διείλητο.
[789] Josephus, Life, 24: Αἰβούτιος ὁ δεκάδαρχος ὁ τοῦ μεγάλου πεδίου τὴν προστασίαν πεπιοτευμένος.
[790] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 2.1.
[791] Ibid. iv. 8. 1.
In Jerusalem there was stationed only one cohort. For the χιλίαρχος, so often referred to in the Acts of the Apostles (more exactly, Acts 21:31 : χιλίαρχος τῆς σπείρης, “One having command of the cohort”), appears throughout as the officer holding the chief command in Jerusalem.[792] With this also Josephus’ statement agrees, that in the fortress of Antonia a τάγμα of the Romans regularly lay,[793] for the τάγμα there means, not as it often does, a legion, but, as in the passage quoted in note [794] a cohort. The fort of Antonia, which Josephus describes as the regular quarters of the detachment, lay to the north of the temple. At two points, stairs (καταβάσεις) led down from the fort Antonia to the court of the temple.[795] This is just the position given it in the Acts of the Apostles. For when Paul, during the tumult in the temple, had been taken by the soldiers for his own safety and was being carried thence into the barracks (παρεμβολή), he was on account of the pressure of the crowd borne by the soldiers up the steps (τοὺς ἀναβαθμούς), and then, with the permission of the chiliarch. he made from these steps a speech to the people (Acts 21:31-40).[796] The officer in command at fort Antonia, who is certainly identical with the chiliarch. is also called by Josephus φρούραρχος.[797] The direct connection between the fort and the court of the temple was of importance, since the latter required to be under constant supervision. At the chief feasts, guards were stationed in the corridors which surrounded the temple.[798]—From one passage in the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 23:23) we see that there was a detachment of cavalry along with the Jerusalem cohort, an arrangement that very frequently existed.[799] The precise character and position of the δεξιολάβοι (from λαβή, “the grip,” therefore : “those who grasped their weapons by the right hand”), mentioned in that passage (23:23) as accompanying the regular soldiers and cavalry, are somewhat obscure. Seeing that the expression occurs elsewhere in Greek literature only twice, and even then appears without explanation, we are no longer in a position to explain it. This much only is certain, that it designated a special class of light-armed soldiers (javelin-throwers or slingers).[800]
[792] Acts 21:31-37; chaps, 22:24-29, 23:10, 15-22, 24:7, 22.
[793] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8: καθῆστο γὰρ ἀεὶ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς τάγμα Ρωμαίων.
[794] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1: τὴν τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν ἴλην καὶ πεζῶν τέσσαρα τάγματα; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 5: μίαν ἴλην ἱππἑων καλουμίνην Σεβαστηνῶν.
[795] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8.
[796] The παρεμβολή, barracks or “castle,” as in the English version, is referred to in Acts 21:34; Acts 21:37; Acts 22:24; Acts 23:10; Acts 23:16; Acts 23:32.
[797] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3.
[798] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8; Antiq. xx. 5. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1; Antiq. xx. 8. 11.
[799] Accordingly cohortes peditatae and equitatae ought to be distinguished. See Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii. 455.
[800] What is known on these matters, or either is not known, is well treated by Meyer in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. A fanciful explanation is attempted by Egli, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1884, p. 21.
After the great war of A.D. 66-73 the garrison arrangements of Palestine were essentially changed. The governor was then no longer a procurator of the equestrian order, but a legate of senatorial rank (in the earlier period, one who had been praetor ; in the later period, one who had been consul). On the site of the destroyed Jerusalem a legion, the legio X. Fretensis, had its headquarters (see under § 20, toward the end). The native troops, which for decades had formed the garrison of Caesarea, were drafted by Vespasian to other provinces.[801] In their place were put auxiliary troops of foreign origin, drawn in part from the farthest lands of the West.[802]
[801] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 2.
[802] On a military order of A.D. 86 (Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 857, Dipl. xiv.) the veterans are referred to who had served in Judea, and that “in alis duabus quae appellantur veterana Gaetulorum et I. Thracum Mauretana et cohortibus quattuor I. Augusta Lusitanorum et 1. et 11. Thracum et 11. Cantabrorum.”—Even Herod the Great had called in the aid of Thracian troops (Antiq. xvii. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 9).
Besides the troops forming the standing army, the provincial governors sometimes organized a militia, i.e. in special cases of need those of the people capable of bearing arms were drafted into military service, without being permanently organized as a part of the army. An instance of this sort occurred in the arming of the Samaritans by Cumanus on the occasion of the war against the Jews.[803]
[803] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1: ἀναλαβὼν τῆν τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν ἴλην καὶ πεζῶν τέσσαρα τάγματα, τούς τε Σαμαρείτας καθοπλίσας. Other examples in Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii. 520 f.—With these temporary organizations the provincial militia, met with especially in the later days of the empire, which formed a third class of the standing army alongside of the legionaries and the auxiliaries, should not be confounded. See with reference to that militia : Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 1884, p. 219 if., xxii. 1887, p. 547 ff.
Like the governors of senatorial rank, the procurators also had, besides the supreme military command, supreme judicial authority within their province.[804] This authority was exercised by the procurators of Judea only in extraordinary cases ; for the ordinary administration of the law, both in criminal and in civil matters, was left in the hands of the native and local courts (see Div. II. vol. i. 184-190).[805]—The range of the procurator’s judicial jurisdiction extended also to the right of deciding matters of life and death, jus gladii or potestas gladii.[806] That this also is true of the governors is proved by several inscriptions.[807] With reference to Judea, Josephus says expressly that the procurator had μέχρι τοῦ κτείνειν ἐξουσίαν.[808] This right of the governor over life and death down to the third century after Christ extended even to the case of Roman citizens, with this restriction, however, that such a one had the right of appealing against the sentence of the governor to the emperor[809] In the earlier days of the empire, it would seem that a Roman citizen accused of an offence constituting a capital charge had the important privilege of appealing to the emperor, even at the beginning of the proceedings and any subsequent stage of the trial, claiming that the investigation be carried on at Rome and the judgment pronounced by the emperor himself.[810] The governor’s absolute penal jurisdiction therefore applied only to provincials. It was a gross violation of the law when Florus in Jerusalem, in A.D. 66, had the Jews crucified who were in possession of equestrian rank.[811] But even provincials might be sent by the governor for trial to Rome, if he wished on account of the difficulty of the case to have the decision of the emperor.[812]—The fact known from the Gospels, that the procurator of Judea at the feast of the Passover set free a prisoner, was grounded indeed on a special authorization of the emperor; for the right of remitting a sentence was not otherwise given to the governors.[813]
[804] See with reference to the procurators : Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 437-439.
[805]a On the question as to how far what has been said applies also to the administration of law in the provinces, see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1, p. 244: “The ordinary criminal jurisdiction was in the provinces left in the hands of the particular communities ; whereas the courts of the governor, like the consular courts in Italy, are to be regarded, at least formally, as extraordinary.”
[806] Digest, i. 18. 6. 8 (from Ulpian, beginning of the third century after Christ): “Qui universas provincias regunt, jus gladii habent et in metallum dandi poteatas eis permissa eat.”—The technical expression jus gladii is also used in Lampridius, Vita Alexandri Severi, c. 49 (honores juris gladii); Firmicus Maternus Mathesius, iii. 5. 5 (ed. Basil. 1533, p. 55: “in magnis administrationibus juris gladii decernit potestatem”), and in the passages quoted in the next note. Something will also be found in Forcellini, Lexicon, s.v. gladius. Elsewhere also potestas gladii occurs in Digest. i. 16. 6 pr.=L. 17. 70; ii. 1. 3 (all from Ulpian).—The technical use of both expressions previous to the beginning of the third century after Christ does not seem capable of proof. The Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas belong to A.D. 201-209. See article “Perpetua” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie. Also the inscriptions scarcely reach farther back than this.—Literature on the jus gladii may be found in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, articles, “gladius” and “imperium merum.”
[807] See the collection of passages in Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung i. 1881, p. 557, Anm. 3; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1, 1874, p. 246; Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 438.—Only two inscriptions can properly be referred to here: Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 3888=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ix. n. 5439: “proc. Alpium Atractianar(um) et Poeninar(um) jur(e) gladii;” and Corp. Inscr. Lat. viii. n. 9367; compare Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 461, n. 968: “praeses (scil. Mauretaniae Caesariensis) jure gladii.”—Of another kind are the two following instances: Orelli, n. 3664=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ii. n. 484: ”proc. prov. M[oe]siae inferions, ejusdem provinciae jus gladii;” and Corp. Inscr. Lat. iii. n. 1919: “proc. centenarius provinciae Li[burniae jure?] gladi.” Seeing that elsewhere a governor of superior rank is assigned to the Moerians and Liburnians, the procurators here referred to “must undoubtedly have exercised the right of inflicting capital sentence only as quite exceptional authority” (Hirschfeld). This at least is perfectly plain in regard to the finance procurator of Africa, who at the time of the martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas exercised the jus gladii as interim occupant of the office of the deceased proconsul. See Acts of Perpetuae and Felicitas, c. 6 (in Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, ed. 2, 1713, p. 95; also in Münter, Primordia ecclesiae Africanae, 1829, p. 234): “Hilarianus procurator, qui tune loco proconsulis Minuci Timiniani defuncti jus gladii acceperat.”
[808] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1.
[809] Compare Div. II. vol. ii. p. 278, and the literature quoted in note 196, to which may be also added, Mommsen, Staatsrecht, l Aufl. ii. 2, pp. 908-910; Merkel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete des römischen Rechts, 2 Heft: Ueber die Geschichte der klassischen Appellation, 1883 (pp. 76-81 treats of the proceedings against Paul).
[810] Acts 25:10 ff., Acts 25:21; Acts 26:32. Pliny, Epist. x. 96 (al. 97): “Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, quos quia cives Romani erant adnotavi in urbem remittendos.” Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1. 244-246.—Notwithstanding the small number of examples, the above statement (which, in Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 278, 279, I characterized as not quite certain) ought to admit of no doubt. The most important case is that of the Apostle Paul. From it we may conclude that the governor was not obliged in all circumstances to send accused Roman citizens to Rome for judgment; for the procurator by his own authority takes up the case of Paul though he was aware of his Roman citizenship (according to Acts 22:25 ff; Acts 23:27); and Paul allows matters to proceed without protesting against this. Only after two years Paul speaks the word that determines his future course: Καίσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι (Acts 25:11). We must therefore suppose that the procurator could judge even a Roman citizen, unless his prisoner lodged a protest. Only if the accused himself made the claim to be judged in Rome, was the governor obliged to give effect to his claim. But that the governor could himself do that is perfectly conceivable. For he was in every respect the representative of the emperor; even his tribunal was called “Caesar’s judgment-seat” (Acts 25:10 : ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος Καίσαρός εἰμι). It is therefore quite conceivable that an accused Roman citizen might voluntarily submit himself to such a tribunal as Paul at first did; for the imperial tribunal of the governor afforded in ordinary circumstances the same protection as the imperial tribunal at Rome, and there could be no pleasure in merely lengthening out the proceedings by a jouruey to Rome. Only if the accused did not trust the impartiality of the governor, had he any interest in claiming the transference of the trial to Rome. Paul makes use of this privilege, when he sees that the procurator is going to judge him in accordance with Jewish ideas.—That this privilege extended only to Roman citizens and not to all provincials may be held as certain, although Paul in his appeal does not make mention of his citizenship (Acts 25:10 ff.). Provincials were judged by the procurator without any right of appeal (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1, 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2). This appears also in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by Pilate.
[811] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 9.
[812] Examples: Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 6 (Ummidius Quadratus sent the most distinguished of the Jews and the Samaritans to Rome); Antiq. xx. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2 (Felix sent Eleasar and other Zealots); Josephus, Life, 3 (Felix sent some of the Jewish priests).
[813] See Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 439. On the right of granting pardon generally: Merkel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete des römischen Rechts, 1 Heft, 1881.
Although the governor, as sole judge, had to give the decision, he frequently availed himself of the advice of his comites. These were partly the higher officials of his court, partly the younger people, who, for the sake of their own training, accompanied the governor. They supported him, not only in administrative matters, but also assisted him in the execution of the law as consilium, συμβούλιον (Acts 25:12).[814]
[814] Caesar’s decree nominating Hyrcanus begins (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2): Ἰούλιος Καῖσαρ … μετὰ συμβουλίου γνώμης ἐπέκρινα.—Sueton. Tiber. 33: “magistratibus pro tribunal! cognoscentibus plerumque so offerebat consiliarium.”—The details of a consultation which Petronius, as governor of Syria, held with his assessores are described by Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 582 sq. (sec. 33=ii. 582: ἐπεξανάστας δὲ μετὰ τῶν συνέδρων ἐβουλεύετο τὰ πρακτέα … τίνες οὖν ἦσαν αί γνῶμαι … sec. 34 init.=ii. 583 fin.: ἀποδεξαμένων δὲ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τῶν συνέδρων κελεύει γράφεσθαι τὰς ἐπιστολάς).—Lamprid. Vita Alexandra Severi, c. 46: “Adsessoribus salaria instituit.”—Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. ii. n. 2129: “comes et adsessor legati ad [census accip.?], comes et adsessor procos. provinciae Galliae [Narbon.].”—The most distinct account of the meeting of such a council is given us in a judgment decree; the proconsul of Sardinia of A.D. 68 (contained in a bronze tablet inscription, communicated by Mommsen, Hermes ii. 1867, pp. 102-127). It also contains the following statement in the form of a protocol: “In consilio fuerunt M. Julius Romulus leg. pro pr., T. Atilius Sabinus q. pro pr., M. Stertinius Rufus f., Sex. Aelius Modestus, P. Lucretius Clemens, M. Domitius Vitalis, M. Lusius Fidus, M. Stertinius Rufus.” Therefore, besides the legate and quaestor, there were other six advisers. Compare generally: Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses (1842), p. 243 ff.; Mommsen, Hermes, iv. 1870, p. 123; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 531 ff.; the commentators on Acts 25:12; and the Lexicons to the New Testament on the word συμβούλιον.
The execution of the death sentence was, as a rule, carried out by soldiers. Le Blant has, indeed, in a learned dissertation, sought to prove that those appointed to this duty were not soldiers, but belonging to the class of apparitores, i.e. the non-military servants of the governor.[815] But the opposite opinion, at least with regard to capital sentences pronounced by the imperial governors, must be considered as absolutely certain.[816] The imperial governors were military administrators; their judicial power therefore the outcome of their military authority.[817] It is, however, unquestionable, and is not disputed even by Le Blant, that the death sentences on soldiers were executed by soldiers.[818] According to Le Blant’s view, this inference should be drawn from that fact, namely, that the governor carried out the death sentences on soldiers by different parties than those employed upon civilians. This, in view of the military character of his judicial authority, is extremely improbable, and it even forms a positive proof for the opposite theory. The many executions of distinguished men and women in the times of Claudius and Nero were carried out by military men, some of them officers of high rank.[819] Numerous examples of a similar kind might be cited from the history of the following emperors.[820] Although these cases might not apply to ordinary courts, yet this much is clear, that the carrying out of executions by soldiers was not opposed to Roman sentiment. But further, not infrequently speculatores are spoken of as executing the condemned.[821] These were certainly soldiers; for (1) the speculatores are frequently described as holding a military office;[822] and (2) in several of the passages quoted the speculatores referred to are distinctly characterized as soldiers;[823] and so those elsewhere spoken of under the same title, and as discharging the same functions, will have been also soldiers. When Le Blant expressly refers to the fact that in many passages the term speculator is interchanged with the expression lictor, and with other words which designate non-military offices,[824] this may be said in the first place to result from a certain laxity in the use of language. On the contrary, one would be equally justified in saying that those expressions are now also used for designating military persons.[825] In the New Testament the agents entrusted with the carrying out the sentence, both at the crucifixion of Christ and at the imprisonment of Paul, are named στρατιῶται, and are also plainly described as such.[826]
[815] Le Blant, “Recherches sur les bourreaux du Christ et sur les agents chargés des exécutions capitales chez les Romains” (Mêmoires des l’Académie des inscr. et belles-lettres, xxvi. 2, 1870, pp. 137-150).—On the apparitores generally, see Mommsen, “De apparitoribus magistratuum Romanorum” (Rhein. Museum, vi. 1848, pp. 1-57); Pauley’s Real-Encyclopaedie, article “apparitores;” Naudet, “Mémoire sur la cohorte du préteur et le personnel administratif dans les provinces romaines” (Mémoires de l’Acad. des inscr. xxvi. 2, pp. 499-555); Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. i. 250-293; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. 533.—To the class of these apparitores belong the scribae, lictores, accensi, nomenclatures, viatores, praecones.
[816] Against Le Blant, see Naudet, “Mémoire sur cette double question: 1. thèse particulière, Sont-ce des soldats qui ont crucifié Jesus-Christ? 2. thèse générale, Les soldats romains prenaient-ils une part active dans les supplices?” Mémoires de l’Acad. des inscr. xxvi. 2, 1870, pp. 151-187).—Also Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses, p. 671 f.; Rein, in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 1046, article “sententia.”
[817] Dio Cassius, liii. 13; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1. 245.
[818] See, e.g., Suetonius, Caligula, 32: “Saepe in conspectu prandentis vel comissantis … miles decollandi artifex quibuscumque e custodia capita amputabat.”—Tertullian asks in his treatise, De corona militis, c. 11, in order to show the incompatibility of military service with the faith of a Christian: “et vincula et carcerem et tormenta et supplicia administrabit, nec suarum ultor injuriarum?” The passage proves at least that soldiers were employed at the carrying out of death sentences, even if we should here with Le Blant refuse to believe that this implies more than their employment at soldiers’ executions.
[819] Tacitus, Annals, xi. 37 f., xii. 22, xiv. 8, 59, xv. 59 ff., 64, 67, 69.
[820] Naudet, l.c. p. 171.
[821] Mark 6:27 : ἀποττείλας ὁ βασιλεὺς σπεκουλάτορα ἐπέταξεν ἐνέγκαι τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.—Seneca, De Ira, i. 18. 4: “Tunc centurio supplicio praepositus condere gladium speculatorem jubet.”—Idem, De beneficiis, iii. 25: “speculatoribus occurrit nihilque se deprecari, quominus imperata peragerent, dixit et deinde cervicein porrexit.”—Firmicus Maternus Mathes. viii. 26 (ed. Basil. 1533, p. 234): “spiculatores faciet, qui nudato gladio hominum amputent cervices.”—Digest. xlviii. 20. 6 (aus Ulpian): “neque speculatores ultro sibi vindicent neque optiones [optio in military language=the servant of a Centurio oder Decurio] ea desiderent, quibus spoliatur, quo momento quis punitus est.” The soldiers engaged at the executions were therefore in later times no longer allowed, as in the times of Christ, to part the garments of the executed person among them.—Jerome, Epist. 1 ad Innocentium, c. 8: “jam spiculator exterritus et non credens ferro, mucromen aptabat in jugulum,” etc.—Acta Cypriani, c. 5 (see Ruinart, Acta martyrum, ed. 2, 1713, p. 218: “cum venisset autem spiculator,” etc.—Acta Claudii, Asterii et alior. c. 4 (Ruinart, p. 268): “Euthalius commentariensis dixit … Archelaus spiculator dixit.” See also c. 5 s. fin. (Ruinart, p. 269).—Acta Rogatiani et Donatiani, c. 6 (Ruinart, p. 282): “adhuc ministris imperans, ut post expensa supplicia a spiculatore capite truncarentur. Tunc lictoris insania … lancea militari perfossas cervices beatissimorum gladio vibrante praecidit.”—Linus, De passione Petri et Pauli, lib. ii. s. fin. (Bibliotheca maxima patrum Lugd. t. ii. p. 73): “Spiculator vero in altum bracbia elevans eum tota vi percussit et caput ejus abscidit … statimque de corpore ejus unda lactis in vestimenta militis exiluit.”—Vita Bacchi junioris martyris, ed. Combefis. p. 114 (I give the quotation according to Du Cange, Glossar.): Αὐστηρότερόν τε τὸν σπεκουλάτορα ὑποβλεψάμενος ἔφη. Τέμνε τρικατάρατε.—In rabbinical literature also we often meet with ספקלטור in the sense of “executioner.” See especially the passages quoted in extenso in Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 573; Schoettgen, Horae hebr. ad Marc. vi. 27; Levy, Chald. Wörterbuch, s.v.; also Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldicum, s.v.—In some glossaries σπεκουλάτωρ is interpreted by ἀποκεφαλίζων, ἀποκεφαλιστής (Wetstein, Novum Testamentum on Mark 6:27; Schleusner, Lexicon in N.T. s.v.).—The form spiculator is a corruption from speculator, which is proved by many inscriptions having the correct form. It cannot be derived from spiculum, for then we should have expected spiculatus, according to the analogy of pilatus, lornicatus, hastatus (Fritzsche, Evangel. Marc. p. 232 sq.).
[822] Speculator means indeed generally “spy, watcher” (e.g. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. ii. 25: “speculatorem vineae vel horti tui; also in Jerome’s translation of Isaiah 56:10; Jeremiah 6:17; Ezekiel 33:7; Hosea 9:8). But most frequently we meet with speculatores in connection with military matters, as spies (Livy, xxii. 33; Caesar, Bell. Gall. ii. 11; Suetonius, Augustus, 27) and swift messengers (Suetonius, Caligula, 44; Tacitus, History, ii. 73). The coalescing of the two meanings is best illustrated from Livy, xxxi. 24: “ni speculator—hemerodromos vocant Graeci, ingens die uno cursu emetientes spatium—contemplatus regium agmen ex specula quadam praegressus nocte media Athenas pervenisset.” It also means the bodyguard of the emperor (Suetonius, Claudius, 35; Tacitus, History, ii. 11. 33, and is hence rendered by Suidas, δορυφόρος. In the latter capacity they formed, down to Vespasian’s time, a distinct corps alongside of the other praetorian cohorts (Tacitus, History, ii. 11. 33; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 853, Dipl. x.). In later times each praetorian cohort seems to have had a number of speculatores (Cauer, Ephemeris epigr. iv. 464), as then each legion had ten speculatores. On inscriptions we frequently meet with speculatores, who served either in legions or in the praetorian cohorts (collected by Cauer, Ephemeris Epigr. iv. 459-466). Their employment as executioners (see the previous note) seems to have resulted from their being bodyguards or generally custodiers of the peace. Compare generally: Laur. Lundii Diss. de speculatore, Hafn. 1703; Joh. Wilh. Gollingii Diss de speculatoribus veterum Romanorum praeside Chr. Gottl. Schwartzio, Altorfii 1726 (also in Thesaurus novus theol.-philol. edd. Hase et Iken, ii. 485-412). Du Cange, Glossarium med. et infin. Lat., and Forcellini, Lex. Lat. s.v.; Scheiffele in Pauly’s Real-Encylopaedie, vi. 1. 1364 f.; Schleusner, Lexicon in Nov. Test. s.v. The commentators on the Gospel of Mark 6:27 (especially Wetstein, Nov. Test.; Wolf, Curae philol. in N. T.; Kuinoel, Fritzsche); Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 560, ii. 530.
[823] So not only Seneca, De ira, i. 18. 4 (where reference is made to the execution of a soldier), but also Acta Rogatiani et Donatiani, c. 6 (lancea militari), and Linus, De passione Petri et Pauli, s. fin. (vestimenta militis). The optiones and commentarienses, referred to alongside of the speculatores as the agents employed in carrying out executions, were also not exclusively but yet most frequently military appointments (optiones, Digest. xlviii. 20. 6; commentariensis, Acta Claudii, Asterii et aliori, c. 4-5). See Marquardt, ii. 527, 529 f.; Cauer, Ephemeris epigr. iv. 441-452, 424 eq.—Theophylact in his commentary on Mark 6:27 explains speculator by στρατιώτης ὃς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται.
[824] Speculator and lictor are synonymous in Jerome, Epist 1 ad innocentium, c. 7-8; also in Acta Rogatiani et Donatiani, c. 6 (Ruinart, p. 282).
[825] The lictor was in no case a soldier, but belonged to the class of apparitores (see the literature referred to in note 80). But he had in the earliest times to carry out death-sentences only upon Roman citizens; and in the days of the empire his duties in this direction did not probably extend farther. See Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, s.v.; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. i. 301 f.
[826] στρατιῶται: Matthew 27:27; Mark 15:16; Luke 23:36; John 19:2; John 19:23 sq., John 19:32; John 19:34; Acts 21:35; Acts 23:23; Acts 27:31; Acts 27:42; Acts 28:16.—Jesus was pierced with a spear (John 19:34).—A centurion was present at the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 15:39; Mark 15:44 f.; Matthew 27:54; Luke 23:47); also at the scourging of Paul (Acts 20:25). Everything connected with the imprisonment of Paul was of a military character. Hence centurions had immediate charge of him (Acts 23:17; Acts 24:23; Acts 27:1 f.).
The third chief function of the procurator-governor, in addition to the command of the troops and judicial authority, was the administration of the finance department. From this, indeed, those equestrian governors got their title; for the imperial finance officials generally were called “procurators.” Since everything that is of consequence about the different sorts of revenue and methods of taxation will be considered in the Excursus on the Census of Quirinius (§ 17, Excursus 1), it is not necessary here to say more than this, that the revenue of Judea as imperial province went, not into the treasury of the Senate, the aerarium, but into the imperial treasury, the fiscus.[827] Judea therefore, in the strict sense of the word, paid its taxes “to Caesar” (Matthew 22:17 ff.; Mark 12:14 ff.; Luke 20:22 ff.), which could only in a certain degree be said of the senatorial provinces.—It was probably for the purposes of tax collection that Judea was divided into eleven toparchies (see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 157-161). In the gathering of the revenue the Romans seem to have made use of the Jewish courts, as was their custom in other places (see Div. II. vol. i. p. 162).—That the taxes were oppressive, is seen from the complaints made by the provinces of Syria and Judea in A.D. 17.[828]
[827] On the difference between the two, see Marquardt, Römische Staats-verwaltung, ii. 292 ff.—The distinction from the beginning undoubtedly did exist, even although, as Hirschfeld conjectures, the centralizing of the imperial treasuries, therefore the establishment of one central fiscus, may firet have been carried out by Claudius (Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen, etc., Bd. 1, Die kaiterlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, 1877, p. 1 ff.).
[828] Tacitus, Annals, ii. 42: “provinciae Syria atque Judaea, fessae oneribus, deminutionem tributi orabant.”
From the taxes in the proper sense are to be distinguished the customs, i.e. duties upon articles on their being exported from the country.[829] These were imposed in all the provinces of the Roman empire. The great trade emporium which yielded the largest returns in this direction was Egypt. From the days of the Ptolemies it had taken advantage of its geographical position in order to secure the flourishing traffic between India and Europe. But even in Palestine they were acquainted with the “custom” as early as the Persian era (Ezra 4:13; Ezra 4:20; Ezra 7:24).—The range to which the “custom” applied, varied certainly according to circumstances. In general it may be assumed that every province of the Roman empire formed a customs district by itself.[830] But also the States and Communes recognised by the Romans as autonomous, and the number of these was very large, had the right of independently levying duties within their own boundaries.[831] To the proofs in regard to these matters already in earlier times acknowledged, there has now to be added: a long inscription in Greek and Aramaic, which contains the customs-tariff of the city of Palmyra in the time of Hadrian.[832] From this inscription it appears that Palmyra, although it was at that time a Roman city in the same sense as many other autonomous communes within the Roman empire, administered independently its own customs, and enjoyed the revenues thereof. It is therefore perfectly evident that the kings and tetrarchs “confederate” with Rome within their own territories could levy their customs for their own behoof, only with this restriction, that the Roman citizens (Romani ac socii nominis Latini, as it is phrased by Livy) should be exempted from them.[833] The customs raised at Capernaum, within the borders of Galilee, in the times of Christ (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) went therefore, undoubtedly, not into the imperial fiscus, but into the treasury of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, in Judea at that time, the customs were raised in the interests of the imperial fiscus. We know from the Gospels that in Jericho, on the eastern borders of Judea, there was an ἀρχιτελώνης (Luke 19:1-2). In the seaport town of Caesarea in A.D. 66, among the influential men of the Jewish community, there John, a τελώνης, is mentioned.[834] It is stated by Pliny that the merchants who exported incense from Central Arabia through Gaza had to pay a high duty, not only to the Arabians on passing through their territory, but also to the Roman customs officers, who, it may be supposed, were stationed at Gaza.[835]—Besides the import and export duties, it would seem as if in Judea, as well as elsewhere, indirect duties of another sort had also to be paid, e.g. a market toll in Jerusalem, introduced by Herod, but abolished in A.D. 36 by Vitellius.[836]
[829] Compare in regard to this: Wetstein, Nov. Test. i. 314-316 (on Matthew 5:46).—Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Portorium, publicani, vectigal;” Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 261 ff., 289 ff.; Winer, Real-wörterbuch, art. “Zoll; “Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie art. “Zoll” (1 Aufl. xviii. 652 f.; 2 Aufl. xvii. 551 f.); Herzfeld, Handels-geschichte der Juden des Alterthums (1879), pp. 159-162; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abth. art. “Zoll;” Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 113-115 (art. מכס, מכמא, etc.); Naquet, Des impóts indirects chez les Romains sous la république et sous l’empire. Paris 1875 (Bursian’s Jahresberichte, Bd. 19, p. 466 if.); Cagnat, Étude historique sur les impôts indirects chez les Romains jusqu’ aux invasions des barbares, Paris 1882 (Bursian’s Jahresberichte, Bd. 36, p. 245 ff.); Vigié, Études sur les impôts indirects romains; des douanes dans l’empire romain, 1884; Thibaut, Les douanes chez les Romains, Paris 1888 (Revue critique, 1889, Nr. 7).—Inscription material with reference to the vectigalia is given in the Indices to Corp. Inscr. Lat. Other materials in Haenel, Corpus Legum, Index, p. 271.
[830] At least in regard to many of these this can be proved. See Marquardt, ii. 263 ff.
[831] Marquardt, i. (1881) p. 79; Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 691.—See especially Livy, xxxviii. 41: “senatus consultera factum est, ut Ambraciensibus suae res omnes redderentur; in libertate essent ac legibus suis uterentur; portoria quae vellent terra marique caperent, dum eorum inmunes Romani acs ocii nominis Latini essent.”—Plebiscite for Termessus in Pisidia of B.C. 71 (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. 1, n. 104, col. ii. lin. 31 sqq.): “Quam legem portorieis terrestribus maritumeisque Ter menses majores Phisidae capiundeis intra suos fineis deixserint, ea lex ieis portorieis capiundeis esto, dum neiquid portori ab ieis capiatur, quei publica populi Romani vectigalia redempta habebunt.
[832] The inscription was discovered in 1881 by Prince Lazarew.—The best edition of the Aramaic text is that of Schroeder (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1884, pp. 417-436). The best edition of the Greek text is that of Dessau, with a comprehensive and informing commentary (Hermes, xix. 1884, pp. 486-533). Both are copied from castings made by Euting.—Both texts, with German translation and explanation of the Aramaic text, have also been edited by Reckendorf (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellschaft, 1888, pp. 370-415).—Less correct are the earlier publications of De Vogüé (Journal asiatique, VIIIme série, t. i. 1883, pp. 231-245; t. ii. 1883, pp. 149-183); and Sachau (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ Gesellschaft, 1883, pp. 562-571).
[833] See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 691, and the passages quoted in note 96.—The Romans sometimes made also arbitrary exceptions in favour of others. Thus in the decree of Senate given in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 22 (applying probably to Hyrcanus I., see vol. i. p. 278), the Jews were allowed to raise customs within their own borders, but on condition that they should hold the king of Egypt exempt.
[834] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4.
[835] Pliny, Historia Naturalis, xii. 63-65: “Evehi non potest nisi per Gebanitas, itaque et horum regi penditur vectigal.… Iam quacumque iter est aliubi pro aqua aliubi pro pabulo aut pro mansionibus variisque portoriis pendunt, ut sumptus in singulos camelos X. DCLXXXVIII. ad nostrum litus (i.e. as far as Gaza) colligat, iterumque imperi nostri publicanis penditur.—We also elsewhere heard of duties being levied by uncivilised tribes. Thus the merchants who carried on trade between Syria and Babylon were obliged to pay customs to the tribes through whose country they passed, and indeed the σκηνῖται, i.e. the dwellers in tents in the desert, were more reasonable in their demands than were the φύλαρχοι on both sides of the Euphrates (Strabo, p. 748).
[836]a Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 4 fin., xviii. 4. 3: οὐιτέλλιος τὰ τέλη τῶν ὠνουμένων καρπῶν ἀνίησιν εἰς τὸ πᾶν τοῖς ταύτῃ κατοικοῦσι.
The collecting of the customs was not done by officers of the State, but by lessees, the so-called publicani, who leased the customs of a particular district for a fixed annual sum; so that whatever in excess of that sum the revenue yielded was their gain; whereas, if the revenue fell below it, they had to bear the loss.[837] This system was widely prevalent throughout ancient times, and came often to be applied, not only to the customs, but also to the taxes properly so called. Thus, e.g. during the Ptolemaic government of Palestine the taxes of each city were annually leased out to the highest bidder.[838] In the days of the Roman empire the system of leasing was no longer applied to the taxes, i.e. the land-tax and poll-tax. These were now collected by officers of State: in senatorial provinces, by the quaestor; in imperial provinces, by an imperial procurator, assistants to the governor;[839] in provinces like Judea, administered by an equestrian, the governor was himself at the same time procurator. The customs, on the other hand, were, even in the days of the empire, still commonly leased out to publicani.[840] So, undoubtedly, it was in Judea. The contrary opinion of Wieseler rests manifestly on a misunderstanding.[841] In the passage cited from Pliny, in note [842] it is expressly said, that for the incense exported from Arabia by way of Gaza a duty bad also to be paid to the Roman publicani. From the universality of the system, it may be assumed that territorial princes like Herod Antipas would also make use of it. Even city communes like Palmyra did not have their customs collected by municipal officials, but rented them out to lessees.[843]—The lessees again, as may be readily supposed, had their subordinate officials, who would usually be chosen from the native population. But even the principal lessees were by no means necessarily Romans. The tax-gatherers of Jericho (Luke 19:1-2) and of Caesarea—Zaccheus and John—were therefore Jews. Since they are described as well-to-do and respectable people, they certainly cannot have belonged to the lowest class of publicans.[844]—The extent to which custom might be charged was indeed prescribed by the court; but since these tariffs, as we see from the case of Palmyra, were in early times often very indefinite, abundant room was left for the arbitrariness and rapacity of the tax-gatherer. The advantage taken of such opportunities, and the not infrequent overcharges that were made by these officials, made them as a class hated by the people. Not only in the New Testament are the terms “publican and sinner” almost synonymous, but also in rabbinical literature tax-gatherers (מוֹבְסִין) appear in an even less favourable light.[845]—On the other hand, the people generally then, just as in the present day, were inventive of contrivances of ways and means for defrauding the revenue.[846]
[837] Compare Rein, art. “Publicani,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 289 ff.; Conr. Gottfr. Dietrich, Beiträge zur Kenntniss des römischen Staatspächtersystems, 1877; Prax, Essai sur les sociétés vectigaliennes précédé d’un exposé sommaire du système fiscal des Romains, Montauban 1884; Rémondière, De la levée des impôts en droit romain, Paris 1886.
[838] Josephus, Antiq. xii. 4. 3: ἔτυχε δὲ κατʼ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν πάντας ἀναβαίνειν τοὺς ἐκ τῶν πόλεων τῶν τῆς Συρίας καὶ Φοινίκης πρώτους καὶ ἄρχοντας ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν τελῶν ὠνήν· κατʼ ἔτος δὲ ταῦτα τοῖς δυνατοῖς τῶν ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει ἐπίπρασκεν ὁ βασιλεύς.—Ibid. xii. 4. 4: ἐνστάσης δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας καθʼ ἣν ἔμελλε τὰ τέλη πιπράσκεσθαι τῶν πόλεων.—Compare also xii. 4. 5. From the latter passage it seems plain that we have here to do, not with customs, but with taxes (φόροι). The most important of these was the poll-tax (Antiq. xii. 4. 1: τὰς ἰδίας ἕκαστοι τῶν ἐπισήμεν ὠνοῦντο πατρίδας φορολογεῖν, καὶ συναθροίζοντες τὸ προστεταγμένον κεφάλαιον τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἐτέλουν). But there was also yet another class of taxes; for the Jerusalem priesthood had been freed by Antiochus the Great (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 3): ὧν ὑπὲρ τῆς κεφαλῆς τελοῦσι καὶ τοῦ στεφανίτου φόρου καὶ τοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων.
[839] Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii. 303.
[840] Ibid. ii. 302.
[841] Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, 1869, p. 78 f., seeks support for his theory from Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 5: μήτε ἑογολαβῶσί τινες. But here the matters referred to are not the customs, but the revenue derived from the land-tax. Besides, these enactments of Caesar had long been antiquated in the days of the empire by the convulsions that had meanwhile occurred.
[842] Pliny, Historia Naturalis, xii. 63-65: “Evehi non potest nisi per Gebanitas, itaque et horum regi penditur vectigal.… Iam quacumque iter est aliubi pro aqua aliubi pro pabulo aut pro mansionibus variisque portoriis pendunt, ut sumptus in singulos camelos X. DCLXXXVIII. ad nostrum litus (i.e. as far as Gaza) colligat, iterumque imperi nostri publicanis penditur.—We also elsewhere heard of duties being levied by uncivilised tribes. Thus the merchants who carried on trade between Syria and Babylon were obliged to pay customs to the tribes through whose country they passed, and indeed the σκηνῖται, i.e. the dwellers in tents in the desert, were more reasonable in their demands than were the φύλαρχοι on both sides of the Euphrates (Strabo, p. 748).
[843] In the decree of the Council of Palmyra with reference to the customs-tariff in the time of Hadrian (Hermes, xix. 490, compare note 97), it is said: In the older customs-tariff very many subjects were not introduced; and so, in making the bargain with the lessee (τῇ μισθώσει), the amount of custom which the tax-gatherer (τὸν τελωνοῦντα) ought to levy has to be determined by tariff and use and wont. But over these questions disputes constantly arose between the merchants and the lessees of the customs. Therefore did the council then conclude that the courts of the city should make a list of articles omitted, and in the next lease-contract (τῇ ἔνγιστα μισθώσει) should have them inserted, in addition to the consuetudinary tax (so that it would thus become a fixed sum). If this tariff be accepted by the lessee (τῷ μισθουμένῳ), then should it, as well as the older tariff, be made generally known by being engraved on stone tablets. But the authorities should take care that the lessee (τὸν μισθούμενον) should exact nothing beyond the requirements of the law.
[844] The assertion of Tertullian, that all tax-gatherers were heathens (de pudicitia, c. 9), was rightly contested as early as by Jerome (Epist. 21 ad Damasum, c. 3, Opera, ed. Valarsi, i. 72).
[845] According to Baba kamma x. 1, one should not take payment in money from the cash-box of the tax-gatherers—should not even receive alms from them (because their money has been gained by robbery). If, however, tax-gatherers have taken away one ass and given another in exchange for it, or robbers have robbed him of his garment and given him another for it, he ought to keep what is given, because it has already ceased to be his property (Baba kamma, x. 2).—According to Nedarim iii. 4, should one promise, in consequence of a vow, to robbers and tax-gatherers, he may declare the thing the property of the priests or of the king, though it be not so!—Throughout, therefore, tax-gatherers (מוכסין) are placed in the same category as robbers. Compare also Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evv. 1878, p. 71 f.; Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juden, p. 161 ff.; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Zoll;” Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 114.—That by מוכסין tax-gatherers in the proper sense are to be understood, is seen from the usage of that word (מכםא, מכסיא) in the customs-tariff of Palmyra.
[846] Kelim, xvii. 16, speaks of “a walking-stick with a secret place for pearls,” i.e. for the purpose of defrauding the revenue.—In treating of the prohibition against wearing garments made of a mixture of linen and wool (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11), Kilajim ix. 2, remarks, that this is allowed under no circumstances, “not even in order to defraud the revenue” (לִגְנוֹב הַמֶּכֶס).—In this connection, also, may be quoted the passage Shabbath viii. 2, where, as an example of a small piece of paper which, on the Sabbath, ought not to be carried from one place to another, a קֶשֶׁר of the tax-gatherer’s is mentioned. The expositors understand by the word, a receipt which has been given at one customs office so that the party might pass free at the next, say on the other side of the river. The philological explanation is certainly beset with difficulty, since קשר elsewhere means “binding” (e.g. a knot on a string, or a joint in a human body). May it not mean a piece of paper, by which a “connection” between two customs offices is established?
Within the limits, which were stated in the very regulations themselves, the Jewish people enjoyed even yet a very considerable measure of freedom in home affairs and self-administration.[847]—The oath of allegiance which the people had to take to the emperor, presumably on every change of government, was, if we may judge from analogous cases, more an oath of confederates than one of subjects, such as had been given even so early as the times of Herod.[848]—The constitution as regards home affairs, during the age of the procurators, is characterized by Josephus, in opposition to the monarchial rule of Herod and Archelaus, in the words:[849] ἀριστοκρατία μὲν ἦν ἡ πολιτεία, τὴν δὲ προστασίαν τοῦ ἔθνους οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐπεπίστευντο. He sees, therefore, in the change which took place after the deposition of Archelaus, a transition from monarchy to aristocracy, because he, and that not incorrectly, considers the Roman procurator only as an overseer, but the aristocratic Sanhedrim as the real governing body. He who held the office of high priest for the time, who also held the presidency of the Sanhedrim, is called by Josephus προστάτης τοῦ ἔθνους. Yet certainly these very high priests were set up and removed at the arbitrary pleasure of the overseer. But even in this matter the Romans restrained themselves within certain limits. Whereas during the period A.D. 6-41 the appointments had been made by the Roman governors, either the legate of Syria or the procurator of Judea, during the the period A.D. 44-66 the right of appointment was transferred to the Jewish princes, Herod of Chalcis and Agrippa II., although these did not reign in Judea. And in both periods the appointments were not made in a purely arbitrary manner, but respect was paid to the claims of certain families (Phabi, Boethos, Ananus, Kamith).[850]
[847] Compare on what follows, Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 511 ff.
[848] Compare generally, vol. i. p. 445.—We have clear evidence of the taking of an oath on the accession of Caligula; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3.
[849] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10 fin.
[850] For the proofs, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 197-206, and my treatise on the ἀρχιερεῖς in the New Testament (Studien und Kritiken, 1872, pp. 593-657).—On the presidency of the high priest in the Sanhedrim, Div. II. vol. i. pp. 180-184.
Of greater importance is the fact that the Sanhedrim exercised to a very large extent the right of legislating and of executing the law, to a larger extent indeed than on the average was the case among non-autonomous communities in the Roman empire.[851] The state of the law was in general this, that the communities recognised by Rome as “free” or “autonomous” had expressly guaranteed to them the right of passing and executing their own laws, in fact, even over Roman citizens dwelling within their bounds. In the subject, non-autonomous communities, to which Judea belonged, the practical state of matters was very nearly the same;[852] but with this twofold restriction: (1) That this practical state of matters was not guaranteed them; and (2) that the Roman citizens residing within their bounds had their own law and their own judicatories. The first point was of most importance. The Roman authorities could, in consequence of it, interfere at pleasure in the legislation and in the administration of the law in non-autonomous communities. In Judea this right seems to have been taken advantage only to a very limited extent It may be assumed that the administration of the civil law was wholly in the hands of the Sanhedrim and native or local magistrates: Jewish courts decided according to Jewish law. But even in the criminal law this was almost invariably the case, only with this exception, that death sentences required to be confirmed by the Roman procurator. In such case the procurator decided if he pleased according to the standard of the Jewish law, as is shown in the trial of Jesus Christ.[853] Even Roman citizens were not wholly exempt from the requirements of the Jewish law. When, indeed, the procurator Festus proposed to judge the Apostle Paul according to Jewish law, this was frustrated by the objection of the apostle (see above, p. 59). But the Jewish law, that no Gentile should be allowed to enter the inner court of the temple, was recognised by the Roman authorities, and any one who transgressed it was punished with death, even if he were a Roman citizen.[854] There was only one limitation to the far-reaching application of this right, and that certainly a very important one; the procurator and his agents could at any time interfere according to their own discretion.
[851] On the position of non-autonomous subjects, see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 716-764, especially 744 ff.—The singular position of Judea has prominence given to it in a rather one-sided manner by Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses, p. 485 f.: “Only one province … namely, Judea, at least in the earlier days of the empire, formed an exception to all the arrangements hitherto described. Whereas in the other provinces the whole criminal jurisdiction was in the hands of the governor, and only in the most important cases had the supreme imperial courts to decide, just as in the least important matters the municipal courts did; the principle that applied in Judea was that at least in regard to questions of religious offence the high priest with the Sanhedrim could pronounce even death sentences, for the carrying out of which, however, the confirmation of the procurator was required.”—This representation of Geib is therefore incorrect, inasmuch as it confounds the position of Judea in the earlier days of the empire with its general condition in the later imperial age. Compare, on the other hand, Mommsen, l.c.
[852] Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1, p. 748: “In regard to the extent of application, the jurisdiction of the native courts and judicatories among subject communities can scarcely have been much more restricted than among the federated communities; while in administration and in civil jurisdiction we find the same principles operative as in legal procedure and criminal law.”
[853] More details in Div. II. vol. i. pp. 186-190.
[854] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 2.4; also confirmed by the inscription discovered by Clermont-Ganneau. Compare Div. II. vol. i. pp. 188, 265. This point is also of importance in forming an estimate of the trial of the Apostle Paul; for a principal charge brought against him by the Jews was that he had taken with him into the temple a “Greek,” Trophimus (Acts 21:28-29). The endeavour was therefore made to impress the procurator with the idea that Paul was deserving of punishment even according to the Roman law, since he had committed an offence against a specific enactment Compare especially, Acts 24:6 : ὃς καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπιίρασεν βεβηλῶσαι. The charge was not indeed valid, since that enact ment of the law would have affected only Trophimus, and not Paul. Besides, it seems that Paul had not really taken Trophimus with him into the temple. Compare, ἐνόμιζον, Acts 21:29.
The Jewish worship was not only tolerated, but, as the enactment just referred to with regard to the temple shows, stood under State protection.[855] The cosmopolitan tendency, which characterized the pagan piety of the time, made it quite possible for distinguished Romans to present gifts to the Jewish temple, and even to offer sacrifices there.[856] The oversight of the temple by the State, especially of the administration of its large finances, seems to have been carried out during the period A.D. 6-41 by means of the Roman authorities. During the period A.D. 44-66 it was transferred to the same Jewish princes who had also received the right of appointing the high priests, namely, Herod of Chalcis, and then Agrippa II.[857] A restriction in the freedom of worship, which was in itself quite harmless, but was regarded by the Jews as oppressive, was set aside in A.D. 36. During the period A.D. 6-36 the beautiful robe of the high priest was in the keeping of the Roman commandant in the fort of Antonia and was only four times in the year, at the three chief feasts and on the Day of Atonement, brought forth for use. At the request of the Jews, in A.D. 36, Vitellius ordered that the robe should be given up. And when the procurator Cuspius Fadius, in A.D. 44, wished again to have the robe put under Roman control, a Jewish embassy went to Rome and procured a rescript from the Emperor Claudius by which the order of Vitellius was confirmed.[858]
[855] This protection extended also to the synagogue services and the Holy Scriptures. When the pagan inhabitants of Dora had placed a statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue there, the council of the city was ordered by the legate Petronius to deliver up the guilty parties, and to take care that such outrages should not occur in future (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 3). A soldier, who had wantonly torn up a Thorah roll, was put to death by the procurator Cumanus (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 2).
[856] Even the Emperor Augustus and his wife sent brazen wine vessels to the temple at Jerusalem, ἀκρατοφόοοι (Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 6) and other costly presents (Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, sec. 23 and sec. 40, ed. Mangey, ii. 569 init., 592 fin.). Marcus Agrippa, on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem, gave presents (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 37, ed. Mangey, ii. 589), and offered as a sacrifice a hundred oxen (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1). Also Vitellius sacrificed there (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3). Compare generally, Div. II. vol. i. pp. 299-305.
[857] Herod of Chalcis, Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 3: τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ νεῶ καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων.—Agrippa II.: Antiq. xx. 9. 7: τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τοῦ ἱεροῦ.—On the administration of the finances of the temple, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 260-264.
[858] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3, xx. 1. 1-2, xv. 11. 4. Compare, on this beautiful robe of the high priest, Div. II. vol. i. p. 256. On the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus it fell into the hands of the Romans (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 8. 3).
Great deference was shown to the religious opinions of the Jews. Whereas in all other provinces the worship of the emperor was zealously insisted upon, and was claimed as a matter of course by the emperor as a proof of respect, no demand of this sort, except in the time of Caligula, was ever made of the Jews. The authorities were satisfied with requiring that twice a day in the temple at Jerusalem a sacrifice was made “for Caesar and the Roman people.” The sacrifice for the whole day consisted in two lambs and an ox, and, according to Philo, was provided by Augustus himself, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων, whereas the opinion of Josephus is that it was made at the cost of the Jewish people.[859] Also on extraordinary occasions the Jewish people evidenced their loyal sentiments by a great sacrifice in honour of the emperor.[860] In the Diaspora the emperor was remembered in the prayers of the synagogue, which, however, cannot be proved to have been the case in Palestine.[861] Next to the worship of the emperor, the emperor’s images on the coins and the standards of the soldiers were specially offensive to the Jews. But in these matters also they were treated with tolerance. It could not, indeed, be avoided that Roman denaria with the figure of the emperor should circulate in Judea (Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24), for silver and gold coins were not minted in Judea. But the copper coinage restored to the country bore, even in the time of the direct Roman rule, as well as in the times of the Herodians, no human likeness, but only the name of the emperor and inoffensive emblems.[862] The troops were required in Jerusalem to dispense with standards having on them the likeness of the emperor. The wanton attempt of Pilate to break through this custom was frustrated by the violent opposition of the people. Pilate found himself compelled to withdraw again the imperial likenesses from Jerusalem.[863] When Vitellius, the legate of Syria, took the field against the Arabian king Aretas, at the urgent entreaty of the Jews, he so directed the course of his march that the troops carrying the likeness of the emperor on their standards should not enter Jewish territory.[864]
[859] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 23 and sec. 40, Mangey, ii. 569, 592); Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 4, 17. 2-4; Against Apion, ii. 6 fin. Further details in Div. II. vol. i. p. 303.
[860] This was done thrice over in the time of Caligula, Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 45 (Mangey, ii. 598); compare also sec. 32 (Mangey, ii. 580: the offering presented on the occasion of his accession).
[861]a Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 7 (ed. Mangey, ii. 524): “If one robbed the Jews of the Proseuche or synagogue, he thus made it impossible to them τὴν εἰς τοὺς εὐεργέτας εὐσέβειαν … οὐκ ἔχοντες ἱεροὺς περιβόλους οἷς ἐνδιαθήσονται τὸ εὐχάριστον … Thereby he gives not, but robs τοῖς κυρίοις τιμήν. For the Proseuchae are for all Jews ὁρμητήρια τῆς εἰς τὸν σεβαστὸν οἶκον ὀσιότητος … ὧν ἡμῖν ἀναιρεθεισῶν τίς ἕτερος ἀπολείπεται τόπος ἢ τρόπος τιμῆς;”—That this standpoint was not an unusual one even among rabbinical Jews is shown by Aboth iii. 2; see the words quoted in Div. II. vol. i. p. 304. Yet, so far as I know, there is no proof that prayer was offered up for the emperor in the synagogues of Palestine. Indeed, considering the opinions prevailing there, it is extremely improbable that such prayers should have been offered.
[862] Compare, on the coins minted in Judea in the time of the procurators, Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 497 sq.; Mionnet, Descript. de médailles, v. 552-555, Suppl. viii. 377; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 64-73, 159-162; De Saulcy, Revue Numismatique, 1853, pp. 186-201; De Saulcy, Recherches, etc., 1854, pp. 138-146, 149 sq., pl. viii., ix.; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 39-53; Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens, 1860, p. 719; Levy, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, pp. 74-79; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 134-153; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 27-29; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, 1874, pp. 69-78, pl. iii.-iv.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 169-195; Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 170-187; Stickel, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 212, 213; Pick, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiv. 1887, pp. 306-308.—On the coins of Augustus with the superscription Καίσαρος, we meet with the year numbers 33, 36, 39, 40, 41. If the number 33 is the correct reading, then we must, as Mommsen first conjectured, assume as the starting-point of the Augustan era the 1st of January 727 A.U.C., or B.C. 27. According to this reckoning, the coins belong to the period 759-767 A.U.C., or A.D. 6-14, which harmonizes perfectly with historical circumstances. As this era is otherwise unknown, Pick, in Zeitschrift für Numismatik, xiv. 306-308, doubts as to the existence of the coins with the number 33, and assumes the Actian era with autumn A.U.C. 723 as its starting-point. Thus the year 36 would be A.U.C. 758-759. The existence of the coins with the number 33 seems, however, to be well established. See especially Madden and Stickel in works quoted above. The coins of Tiberius, with, for the most part, the name written in the abbreviated form Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, are dated by the years of Tiberius’ reign; we have examples of the Numbers 2, 3, 4 up to 18. On many the name of Julia occurs along with that of Tiberius, and, indeed, this is so up to the year of Tiberius 16, i.e. A.D. 29, the year in which Julia (Livia) died. Many coins bore only the name of Julia. There are coins of Claudius of the 13th and 14th year of his reign; and coins of Nero of the 5th year. On the latter stands only the name of the emperor; on those of Claudius there is also the name of his wife, Julia Agrippina.
[863] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 2-3. In reference to the military flags and standards, as Domaszewski has shown (Domaszewski, Die Fahnen im römischen Heere, Abhandlungen des archäolog.-epigraph. Seminares der Universität Wien, 5 Heft 1885), two different classes are to be distinguished: (1) Those which were used for tactical purposes, and (2) those which had only a symbolical significance. The former were by far the most numerous: to the latter belonged the eagles of the legions and the signa which bore the figure of the emperor. Mommsen indeed believes, however, that even to them should be assigned a certain tactical significance; see Archäologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn Jahrgang, x. 1886, p. 1 ff. The figures of the emperor were in the form of a medallion, and were usually attached to the signa. Among the legionaries, as well as among the auxiliary cohorts we hear of imaginiferi (see list in Cauer, Ephemeris epigr. iv. pp. 372-374).—The earlier procurators, therefore, had taken with them to Jerusalem only the signa which did not bear the figure of the emperor, that is, the common ones used for tactical purposes; but Pilato took also those bearing the figure of the emperor.
[864] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3.
So far, then, as the civil enactments and the orders of the supreme authorities were concerned, the Jews could not complain of any want of consideration being paid them. It was otherwise, however, with respect to the practical carrying out of details. The average Roman official was always disposed to disregard all such nice, delicate consideration. And the unfortunate thing was, that Judea, especially in the last decades before the war, had had more than one governor who had lost all sense of right and wrong. Besides this, notwithstanding the most painstaking efforts to show indulgence to Jewish views and feelings, the existing relations were in themselves, according to Jewish ideas, an insult to all the lofty, divine privileges of the chosen people, who, instead of paying tribute to Caesar, were called rather to rule over all nations of the world.[865]
[865]a This was, at least, the popular sentiment. From these religious premisses in themselves one might, indeed, arrive at the very opposite result, namely, that even the pagan government was of God, and that it must be submitted to so long as God wills. But this way of considering the subject was not in favour during the period A.D. 6-66, and, as the years went on, those who held it were in an ever-decreasing minority. Compare generally on the political attitude of Pharisaism, Div. II. vol. ii pp. 17-19.
Their first administrative measures which they introduced there show how hard a task the incorporation of Judea into the empire proved to the Romans. Contemporaneously with the appointment of Coponius, the first procurator of Judea, the emperor had sent a new legate, Quirinius, into Syria. It was now the duty of the legate to take a census of the population of the newly-acquired territory, in order that the taxes might be appointed according to the Roman method. But no sooner had Quirinius, in A.D. 6 or A.D. 7, begun to carry out his commission, than he was met with opposition on every hand. Only the quieting representations of the high priest Joazar, who clearly perceived that open rebellion would be of no avail, led to the gradual abandonment of the opposition that had already begun, and then the people with mute resignation submitted to the inevitable, so that, at last, the census was made up.[866] It was, however, no enduring peace, but only a truce of uncertain duration. Judas of Gamala in Gaulanitis, called the Galilean, who is certainly identical with that Judas, son of Hezekiah, of whom we have already learnt on p. 4, in company with a Pharisee of the name of Sadduc, made it his task to rouse the people into opposition, and in the name of religion to preach rebellion and revolutionary war. This movement had not, indeed, any immediate marked success. But the revolutionists got so far as to found now among the Pharisees a more strict fanatical party, that of the patriotic resolutes, or, as they called themselves, the Zealots, who wished not to remain in quiet submission till by God’s decree the Messianic hope of Israel should be fulfilled, but would rather employ the sword in hastening its realization, and would rush into conflict with the godless enemy.[867] It is to their machinations that we are to ascribe the nursing of the fires of revolution among the smouldering ashes which sixty years later burst forth in vehement flames.[868]
[866] According to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, in. the 37th year of the aera Actiaca, i.e. autumn, 759-760 A.U.C., or A.D. 6-7. The Actian era begins on 2nd Sept. 723 A.U.C. or B.C. 31.
[867] Ζηλωταί, compare Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13; Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 9, 5. 1, 6. 3, vii. 8. 1.—For the Biblico-Hebraic קַנָּא we find in later Hebrew also קַנַּאי and קַנְאָן (see Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum; Levy, Chaldaisches Wörterbuch; Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch). The Greek Καναναῖος is constructed out of the later form of the word through the modification of the plural, קַנְאָנַיָא as ought to be used in Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, instead of the received Κανανίτης.—In the Mishna, Sanhedrin ix. 6, and Aboth derabbi Nathan c. 6, we have קנָּאּין or קַנָּאִים. In the former passage, however, are meant, not political, but religious zealots.—Compare generally: Oppenheim, “Die Kannaim oder Zeloten” in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, col. 289-292; Pressel, art. “Zeloten” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xviii. 485-489; Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 238; Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 707-709; Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften der Alten Testaments, § 560; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abth. pp. 1286-1296; Sieffert in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xvii. 488-491; Wolf, Curae philol.; Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Meyer, Bleek, and other commentators, on Matthew 10:4.
[868] Compare generally: Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1 and 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1; Acts 5:37. Art. “Judas” in the Biblical Dictionaries. Chr. Alfr. Körner, “Judas von Gamala” (Jahresbericht der Lausitzer Prediger-Gesellschaft zu Leipzig, 1883-1884, pp. 5-12).—Also the descendants of Judas distinguished themselves as Zealots. His sons James and Simon were executed by Tiberius Alexander (Antiq. xx. 5. 2); his son Menachem (Manaim) was one of the principal leaders at the beginning of the rebellion in A.D. 66 (Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 8-9). A descendant of Judas and relative of Menahem of the name of Eleasar conducted the defence of Masada in A.D. 73 (Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 9, vii. 8. 1 ff.).—A literary memorial of the views and hopes of the Zealots is the Assumptio Mosis, which had its origin about that time (see Div. II. vol. iii. pp. 73-80), which goes so far in the way of prophecy as to say that Israel will tread on “the neck of the eagle,” i.e. of the Romans (10:8). Compare Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 144, 183.
Of Coponius and some of his successors little more is known to us than their names. Altogether there were seven procurators who administered Judea during the period A.D. 6-41: (1) Coponius, probably A.D. 6-9; (2) Marcus Ambivius, probably A.D. 9-12; (3) Annius Rufus, probably A.D. 12-15; (4) Valerius Gratus, A.D. 15-26; (5) Pontius Pilatus, A.D. 26-36; (6) Marcellus, A.D. 36-37; (7) Marullus, A.D. 37-41.[869] The long period during which Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate held office was owing to the general principles on which Tiberius proceeded in his appointment of governors. In the interest of the provinces he left them as long as possible at their posts, because he thought that governors acted like flies upon the body of a wounded animal; if once they were gorged, they would become more moderate in their exactions, whereas new men began their rapacious proceedings afresh.[870]
[869] Compare Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2, 4. 2, 6. 10 fin.—The period during which the first three held office cannot be quite exactly determined. That of the two following is fixed by the facts that Valerius Gratus was in office for eleven years (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2) and Pontius Pilate for ten years (xviii. 4. 2). But Pilate was deprived of his office before Vitellius was in Jerusalem for the first time, i.e. shortly before Easter A.D. 36, as results from a comparison of Antiq. xviii. 4. 3 with xviii. 5. 3. The period during which the last two held office is determinedly this, that Marullus was installed immediately after the accession of Caligula in March A.D. 37 (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10 fin.).—Eusebius affirms (Hist. Eccl. i. 9) that Josephus sets the date of Pilate’s entrance upon office in the twelfth year of Tiberius, A.D. 25 and 26, which is only so far correct, that this conclusion may be deduced from Josephus.
[870] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 5.—Tiberius’ care for the provinces is also witnessed to by Suetonius (Tiberius, 23: “praesidibus onerandas tributo provincias suadentibus rescripsit: boni pastoris esse tondere pecus, non deglubere”). Tacitus also, in Annals, i. 80, iv. 6, speaks of the long periods granted to governors. For an estimate of Tiberius, compare especially Keim’s article in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 528-535.
Among those named, Pontius Pilate is of special interest to us, not only as the judge of Jesus Christ, but also because he is the only one of whom we have any detailed account in Josephus and Philo.[871] Philo, or rather Agrippa I., in the letter which Philo communicates as written by him, describes him as of an “unbending and recklessly hard character” (τὴν φύσιν ἀκαμπὴς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ αὐθάδους ἀμείλικτος), and gives a very bad account of his official administration. “Corruptibility, violence, robberies, ill-treatment of the people, grievances, continuous executions without even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties,” are charged against him.[872] The very first act by which Pilate introduced himself into office was characteristic of him who treated with contempt the Jewish customs and privileges. Care had constantly been taken by the earlier procurators that the troops entering Jerusalem should not carry flags having the figure of the emperor, in order that the religious feelings of the Jews should not be offended by the sight of them (see in regard to these, above, p. 78). Pilate, on the other hand, to whom such tolerance appeared unworthy weakness, caused the garrison soldiers of Jerusalem to enter the city by night with the figure of the emperor on their flags. When the news spread among the people, they flocked out in crowds to Caesarea, and besieged the procurator with entreaties for five days and nights that the offensive articles might be removed. At last, on the sixth day, Pilate admitted the people into the race-course, into which at the same time he had ordered a detachment of soldiers. When the Jews also here again repeated their complaints, he gave a signal, upon which the soldiers surrounded the people on all sides with drawn swords. But the Jews remained stedfast, bared their necks, and declared that they would rather die than submit to a breach of the law. As further opposition seemed to Pilate hazardous, he gave orders to remove the offensive images from Jerusalem.[873]
[871] Compare in regard to him, besides the literature referred to on p. 38: Mounier, De Pontii Pilati in causa servatoris agendi ratione, Lugd. Bat. 1825; Leyrer, art. “Pilatus” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xi. pp. 685-687; Klöpper in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iv. 581-585; Renan, Life of Jesus, chap. xxvii.: “Fate of the Enemies of Jesus;” Warneck, Pontius Pilatus der Richter Jesu Christi. Ein Gemälde aus der Leidensgeschichte, Gotha 1867; Rosières, Ponce Pilate, Paris 1883; Woltjer, Pontius Pilatus, sene studie, Amsterdam 1888; Arnold, Die neronische Christenverfolgung, 1888, pp. 116-120 (on the mention of Pilate in Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44); Gustav Adolf Müller, Pontius Pilatus der fünfte Procurator von Judaea und Richter Jesu, von Nazareth, Stuttgart 1888 (gives at pp. v-viii a list of the special literature on Pilate from the beginning of the art of printing down to the present time, more than a hundred names)
[872] Philo, De Legatione ad Cajum, sec. 38, ed. Mangey, ii. 590: τὰς δωροδοκιας, τὰς ἵβρεις, τὰς ἁρπαγὰς, τὰς αἰκίας, τὰς ἐπηρείας, τοὺς ἀκρίτου; καὶ ἐπαλλήλους φόνους, τὴν ἀνήνυτον καὶ ἀργαλεωτάτην ὠμότητα.
[873] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 2-3; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii. 6. 4—According to Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, viii p. 403, this story has also been reported by Philo in portions of his work on the persecutions of the Jews under Tiberius and Caligula, which are no longer extant (αὐτὰ δὴ ταὺτα καὶ ὁ Φίλων συμμαρτυρεῖ, τὰς σημαίας φάσκων τὰς βασιλικὰς τὸν Πιλάτον νύκτωρ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀναθεῖναι). Compare in regard to this question, Div. II. vol. iii. p. 349.
A new storm burst forth when on one occasion he applied the rich treasures of the temple to the certainly very useful purpose of building an aqueduct to Jerusalem. Such an appropriation of the sacred treasures was no less offensive than the introduction of the figures of the emperor. When, therefore, he once went to Jerusalem while the building was being proceeded with, he was again surrounded by a complaining and shrieking crowd. But he had previously obtained information of the projected outburst, and had given orders to the soldiers to mix among the people dressed in citizen garb armed with clubs. When the multitude therefore began to make complaints and to present petitions, he gave the preconcerted signal, whereupon the soldiers drew forth their clubs which they had concealed under their upper garments, and mercilessly beat down the helpless crowds. Many lost their lives in this melee. The opposition to the useful undertaking was thus indeed crushed; but also the popular hatred against Pilate was stirred up afresh.[874]
[874] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 4; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii. 6. 6-7.—The length of the aqueduct is given by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 2, at two hundred stadia; in Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 4, at four hundred; so at least is it in our text of Josephus, whereas in his rendering of the latter passage Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 6. 6) makes it three hundred stadia. In any case, according to these measurements, there can be no doubt that the reference is to the aqueduct from the so-called pool of Solomon south-west of Bethlehem. From thence to Jerusalem two aqueducts were built in ancient times, of which the ruins of the one are discernible; the other is still preserved in comparative completeness. 1. The former is the shorter, and runs upon a higher level; it begins south of the pool of Solomon in the Wady Bijar, then goes through the pool, and thence without any further deviations straight to Jerusalem. 2. The one that is still completed is longer and lies lower; it begins still farther south in the Wady Arrub, passes then also through the pool, and thence with great windings to Jerusalem. The latter conduit is certainly the more modern; for, on account of the more remote derivation of the water, the aqueduct running on the higher level could no longer be used, and so a new one had to be built. Its length, owing to the long windings, reaches to about 400 stadia, although the direct line would measure much less than half that distance. When it had become dilapidated, during the Middle Ages, earthenware pipes were placed in it. In its original form it was probably identical with the building of Pilate. Many, however, owing to the absence of any trace of the characteristics of Roman building, hold it to have been still older than the time of Pilate, and suppose that Pilate only restored it. But this theory is directly in opposition to the words of Josephus. That the aqueduct of Pilate ran along the course taken by this water conduit, may be regarded as highly probable.—In the Jerusalem Talmud we find the statement that an aqueduct led from Etam to the temple (Jer. Yoma, iii. fol. 41, in Lightfoot, Descriptio templi, c. 23, Opera, i. 612). In fact, Etam (עֵיטָם), according to 2 Chronicles 11:6, lay between Bethlehem and Tekoa, unquestionably at the spring which is now called Ain Atan, in the immediate neighbourhood of Solomon’s pool (compare Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Etam;” Schick, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 152 f.).—The most exact description of the present condition of the two conduits is given by Schick, “Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem” (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 1887, pp. 132-176, with map and plans).—Compare also: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 272 ff.; Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 84-95 (very full in its historical material); an anonymous article, “Water Supply of Jerusalem, ancient and modern” (Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new series, vol. v. 1864, pp. 133-157; Zschokke, “Die versiegelt Quelle Salomos” (Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1867, pp. 426-442); The Recovery of Jerusalem, 1871, pp. 233-267; and generally the geographical literature mentioned in vol. i. pp. 16-20.
The New Testament also contains hints about the popular uprisings in the time of Pilate. “There were present at that season,” so runs the narrative in Luke 13:1, “some that told Jesus of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” This statement is to be understood as indicating that Pilate had put to the sword a number of Galileans while they were engaged in the act of presenting their offerings at Jerusalem. But nothing more definite as to this incident is known. And just as little do we know about “those who had made insurrection, and had committed murder in the insurrection” (Mark 15:7; comp. Luke 23:19), to whom among others that Barabbas belonged, whose liberation the Jews demanded of Pilate.
Probably to the later days of Pilate belongs an occurrence about which we are informed in the letter of Agrippa I. to Caligula, which is communicated by Philo. Pilate had learnt from the outburst at Caesarea that the setting up of the figures of the emperor in Jerusalem could not be carried out against the stubborn resistance of the Jews. He thought he now, at least, might attempt the introduction of votive shields without figures, on which the name of the emperor was written. Such shields, richly gilt, did he set up in what had been the palace of Herod, which Pilate himself was now wont to occupy, “less for the honour of Tiberius than for the annoyance of the Jewish people.” But the people would not tolerate even this. First of all, in company with the nobles and with the four sons of Herod, who were then present in Jerusalem attending a feast, they applied to Pilate in order to induce him to remove the shields. When their prayer proved unsuccessful, the most distinguished men, among whom certainly were those four sons of Herod, addressed a petition to the emperor, asking that he should order the removal of the offensive shields. Tiberius, who plainly perceived that it was a piece of purely wanton bravado on the part of Pilate, ordered the governor on pain of his severe displeasure to remove at once the shields from Jerusalem, and to have them set up in the temple of Augustus at Caesarea. This accordingly was done. “And thus were preserved both the honour of the emperor and the ancient customs of the city.”[875]
[875] Philo, De Legatione ad Cajum, sec. 38, ed. Mangey, ii. 589 sq.—That the incident occurred in the later years of Pilate is probable from the decisiveness of the tone of Tiberius; for, according to Philo, Leg. ad Cajum, sec. 34, ed. Mangey, ii. 569, Tiberius assumed a friendly attitude toward the Jews only after the death of Sejanus in A.D. 31. Sejanus was, according to Philo, an arch-enemy of the Jews. To his influence is ascribed both the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in A.D. 19, and the harsh treatment of Pilate in Judea.
At last by his utter recklessness Pilate brought about his own overthrow. It was an old belief among the Samaritans that on the mountain of Gerizim the sacred utensils of the temple had been buried since Moses’ times.[876] A Samaritan pseudo-prophet once promised in A.D. 35 to show these sacred things if the people would assemble on Mount Gerizim. The light-minded multitude gave him a hearing, and in great crowds the Samaritans gathered together armed in the village of Tirathana at the fort of Mount Gerizim, so that from thence they might ascend the mountain and behold the sacred spectacle. But before they could carry out their project, they were arrested by Pilate in the village by a strong force, a portion of them was slain, a portion hunted in flight, and again another portion cast into prison. Of those imprisoned also Pilate had the most powerful and the most distinguished put to death.[877] But the Samaritans were convinced that no revolutionary intentions lay to the basis of their pilgrimage to Gerizim, and so they complained of Pilate to Vitellius, the legate in Syria at that time. Their complaints had actually this result, that Vitellius sent Pilate to Rome to answer for his conduct, while he made over the administration of Judea to Marcellus.[878]
[876] Compare also: Petermann in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 373; Kautzsch, Herzog, Real-Encylop. 2 Aufl. xiii. 346, 348.
[877] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 1.
[878] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 2. Pilate must have taken about a year on his journey from Judea to Rome, for he did not arrive in Rome until after the death of Tiberius (Antiq. l.c.). His subsequent fortunes are not told by Josephus.—The Christian legend makes Pilate either end his own life by suicide, or suffer death at the hands of the emperor as punishment for his proceedings against Christ. 1. In regard to the story about his suicide, Eusebius refers in his Church History to the Greek chroniclers, who “have made a list of the Olympiads together with the occurrences that took place in each” (Hist. Eccl. ii. 7: ἱστοροῦσιν Ἑλλήνων οἱ τὰς Ὀλυμπιάδας ἅμα τοῖς κατὰ χρόνους πεπραγμένοις ἀνκγράψαντες). In the Chronicle he mentions as His source “the Roman historians (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 150 sq.: (a) According to the Armenian: “Pontius Pilatus in varias calamitates implicitus sibi ipsi manus inferebat. Narrant autem qui Romanorum res scriptis mandaverunt.” (b) According to Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 624: Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος ἐπὶ Γαΐον Καίσαρος ποικίλαις περιπεσὼν συμφοραῖς, ὣς φασιν οἱ τὰ Ῥωμαίων συγγραψάμενοι, αὐτοφονευτὴς ἐαυτοῦ ἐγένετο. (c) According to Jerome, “Pontius Pilatus in multas incidens calamitates propria se manu interficit. Scribunt Romanorum historici”). The verbal agreement of the Chronicle with the Church History (comp. Hist. Eccl. ii. 6: τοσαύταις περιπεσεῖν … συμφοραῖς … αὐτοφονευτήν) shows that on both occasions Eusebius used the same source. Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, i. 343, and Orosius, vii. 5. 8, are derived directly or indirectly from Eusebius. The legend of Pilate’s suicide is further expanded and adorned in the apocryphal literature, e.g. in the Mors Pilati in Tischendorf’s Evangelia apocrypha, 1876, pp. 456-458 (the demons crowding around his corpse utter forth dreadful shrieks, so that the body is transported from Rome to Vienne on the Rhine, and thence to Lausanne, until at last the people of Lausanne “a se removerunt et in quodam puteo montibus circumsepto immerserunt, ubi adhuc … diabolicae machinationes ebullire dicuntur”).—2. According to another form of the Christian legend, Pilate was executed by Nero. So Malalas, ed. Dindorf, pp. 250-257; Johannes Autiochenus in Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iv. 574 (also in Fabricius, Cod. apocryph. N. T. iii. 504 sq.); Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. Νέρων; Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 459. According to the apocryphal Παράδοσις Πιλάτου it was Tiberius who caused Pilate to be executed. See text in Thilo, Codex apocryph. N. T. pp. 813-816; Tischendorf, Evang. apocryph. pp. 449-455. According to this account Pilate dies as a penitent Christian. Compare generally on the Pilate legend, besides the literature referred to above on p. 82, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 185.
Soon thereafter, at the Passover festival of A.D. 36,[879] Vitellius himself went to Jerusalem, and won for himself on that occasion the goodwill of the inhabitants of the capital, for he remitted the taxes on the fruits sold in the city, and gave up for free use the high priest’s robe, which since A.D. 6 had lain in the possession of the Romans.[880]
[879] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3, says that it was at the time of a Passover feast. That it was the Passover of A.D. 36 may be deduced partly from the fact that Vitellius did not arrive in Syria before the summer or autumn of A.D. 35 (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 32), partly from the fact that on the second visit of Vitellius to Jerusalem he received the tidings of the death of Tiberius on 16th March A.D. 37 (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3). Between the first and the second visit of Vitellius to Jerusalem, however, we must suppose that a considerable time had passed. Compare especially, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 226-230; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (2 Aufl. 1874), pp. 75-80; also Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. lxvii., p. 247, n. 1493; Rhoden, De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, 1885, p. 33 sq.
[880] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3, xv. 11. 4
After he had meanwhile been occupied with the Parthian expedition (see above, p. 34), the campaign against Aretas, which he had been ordered by Tiberius in the spring of A.D. 37 to undertake, led him again to Jerusalem (see above, p. 33). On this occasion also he again established a good understanding by showing consideration for Jewish sentiments. The way from Antioch to Petra had led him, together with his army, through Judea proper. But the Roman standards, as is well known, were offensive to the Jews. They therefore sent to Vitellius at Ptolemais an embassy, which entreated him with tears that he should not lead his army through the Holy Land. Vitellius was so reasonable as to perceive the grounds of their request, caused the army to march through the Great Plain, and went himself alone to Jerusalem. On the fourth day of his stay there he received tidings of Tiberius’ death, whereupon he led his whole army back to Antioch.[881]
[881] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3.—The designation the “Great Plain” was plainly used for two plains in Palestine, as has been shown in a convincing manner by Reland, Palaestina, pp. 359-370. (1) Most frequently this designation is used for the plain which begins at Ptolemais and stretches thence to the northern slope of Carmel in a south-easterly direction. At its south-eastern end lies the famous battlefield of Jezreel (יִזְרְעֵאל, also Esdraelon), after which the plain is also named. Compare Judith i. 5, also i. 8: τὸ μέγα πεδίον Ἐσδρηλώμ; 1Ma_12:49; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 2; Ptolemais, κατὰ τὸ μέγα πεδίον ἑκτισμένη; Antiq. v. 1. 22, viii. 2. 3, xv. 8. 5, xx. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 1, 4 1; Life, 24, 26, 62; Winer, Realwoürterbuch, i. 580 f. (art. “Jiereel”); Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 337; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 335-357; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 689 ff.—(2) But this same designation was also used for the Jordan Valley between the lake of Gennezaret and the Dead Sea, Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 2: τὸ μέγα πεδίον καλεῖται, ἀπὸ κώμης Γινναβρὶν διῆκον μέχριτῆς Ἀσφαλτίτιδος λίμνης. Ginnabrin is without doubt the same place, which Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7, calls Sennabris, in the neighbourhood of Tiberias. See Tuch, Quaestio de Flavii Josephi loco B. J. iv. 8. 2, Lips. 1860, and Gust. Boettger, Topogr.-hist. Lexicon zu den Schriften des Flaviis Josephus, 1879, pp. 136, 228. Josephus, Antiq. iv. 6. 1: ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην κατὰ τὸ μέγα πεδίον Ἱεριχοῦντος ἀντικρύ. The Jordan Valley is also intended in 1Ma_5:52 (=Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 5): εἰς τὸ πεδίον τὸ μέγα κατὰ πρόσωπον Βαιθσάν (where Keil, against Grimm, gives the correct explanation). The Plain of Jezreel was not reckoned down to Beth-sean or Scythopolis, but rather Mount Tabor lay, according to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 8, “between Scythopolis and the Great Plain.”—A third plain, namely, that of Asochis, north of Sepphoris (see vol. i. p. 296), appears in Josephus, Life, 41 fin., to be designated too as the “Great Plain.” But this was really attached to the Plain of Jezreel, and ought to be reckoned along with it; for only upon this hypothesis is the very passage referred to, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 8, intelligible.—In the case referred to in our text the plain beginning at Ptolemais is the one intended. Vitellius caused his army to march through it in a south-easterly direction, then presumably across the Jordan, continuing the march on the other side farther to the south.
The reign of Caligula, A.D. 37-41, was, after the rule of Tiberius, the enemy of the human race, joyfully greeted throughout the whole empire, and especially among the Jews. Since Vitellius was residing in Jerusalem when the news of the change of government reached him, the Jews were the first of the nationalities of Syria who professed to the new emperor the oath of allegiance, and presented sacrifices for him.[882] Also during the first eighteen months of his reign the Jews enjoyed peace and quiet.[883] But in the autumn of A.D. 38 a bloody persecution of the Jews broke out in Alexandria, which, though apparently at the instance of the Alexandrian mob, was yet indirectly the work of the emperor.[884] In his overweaning self-conceit, joined with a beclouded intellect, he took up the idea of his divine rank with terrible earnestness. With him the worship of the emperor was no mere form of homage which the emperors had taken over as a heritage of the Greek kings; but he actually believed in his divinity, and regarded the refusal to worship him as a proof of hostility to his person.[885] During the second year of his reign this idea seems to have obtained a complete mastery over him, and to have become known in the provinces. The provincials developed a corresponding zeal. The Jews, who could not follow this course, fell under suspicion of hostility to Caesar. This was to the Jew hating populace of Alexandria a welcome excuse for giving free expression to their hatred of the Jews; for they might well suppose that by persecuting the Jews they would earn the favour of the emperor. The governor of Egypt at that time, A. Avillius Flaccus, was weak enough for the sake of his own interests to agree to the plans of the enemies of the Jews. He had been governor of Egypt under Tiberius for five years, A.D. 32-37, and, according to the testimony of Philo, had during that time administered his office in a faultless manner.[886] Under Caligula he more and more lost that reputation. As an intimate friend of Tiberius, he stood, as a matter of course, in disfavour with Caligula. With the death of young Tiberius, grandson of the Emperor Tiberius, and of the praetorian prefect Macro, both of whom were compelled by Caligula to commit suicide, he completely lost every support at the court. Thenceforth he set no other end before him than this, namely, to endeavour by all means to secure the favour of the young emperor. This was the one principle that determined his proceedings toward the Jews.[887]
[882] Philo, De Legatione ad Cajum, sec. 32 (Opera, ed. Mangey, ii. 580): Γαΐω παραλαβόντι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν πρῶτοι τῶν κατὰ Συρίαν ἁπάντων ἡμεῖς συνήσθημεν, Οὐιτελλίου τότε . . ἐν τῇ πόλει διατρίβοντος, ᾧ τὰ περὶ τούτων ἐκομίσθη γράμματα. … Πρῶτον τὸ ἡμέτερον ἱερὸν ἐδέξατο τὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀρχῆς Γαΐου θυσίας. Compare on the sacrifices also sec. 45, Mangey, ii. 598. On the oath: Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3. See further on this point, vol. i. p. 445.
[883] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 7. 2 fin.: Γάιος δὲ τὸν μὲν πρῶτον ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τὸν ἑξῆς πάνυ μεγαλοφρόνως ἐχρῆτο τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ μέτριον παρέχων αὑτὸν εἰς εὔνοιαν προυχώρει παρά τε Ῥωμαίοις αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὑπηκόοις.
[884] Compare on the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula: Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, t. i. Venise 1732, pp. 434-462, 629-632; Lewin, Fasti sacri, London 1865, ad ann. 38-41; Delaunay, Philon d’Alexandrie, écrits historiques, influence, luttes et persécutions des juifs dans le monde romain, 2 ed. Paris 1870; Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, New York 1876, pp. 199-222; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Bd. ii. 2 Aufl. pp. 225-251; Grätz, “Präcisirung der Zeit für die, die Judäer betreffenden Vorgänge unter dem Kaiser Caligula” (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1877, pp. 97 ff., 145 ff., reprinted in Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. pp. 759-769); Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 515-519.—For other literature, see Div. II. vol. iii. pp. 349-354.
[885] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 11-15 (ed. Mangey, ii. 556-561); Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 7. 2 fin., 8. 1, xix. 1. 1 ff.; Dio Cassius, lix. 26,28; Suetonius, Caligula, 22; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, ii. 225 ff.
[886] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 3 init., ed. Mangey, ii. 518: Ἑξαετίαν γὰρ τὴν ἐπικράτειαν λαβὼν πέντε μὲν ἔτη τὰ πρῶτα, ζῶντος Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, τήν τε εἰρήνην διεφύλαξε καὶ οὕτως εὐτόνως καὶ ἐρρωμένως ἀφηγήσατο, ὡς τοὺς πρὁ αὐτοῦ πάντας ὑπερβαλεῖν. Compare secs. 1-2, Mangey, ii. 517, 518.—The name of Flaccus is given in Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 1, as Φλάκκος Ἀουίλλιος. So, too, by Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 150 sq. According to Jerome, Flaccus Avilius; according to Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 626: Φλάκκος Ἀβίλιος, corrupted in i. 615 into Φλάκκος Ἀσύλαιος. An inscription of the time of Tiberius at Tentyra in Egypt gives the full name (Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions gr. et lat. de l’Égypte, i. 87 sqq.= Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4716=Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Bd. xii. Bl. 76, Inscr. Gr. n. 27): ἐπὶ Αὔλου Ἀουιλλίου Φλάκκου ἡγεμόνος. The reading is indeed doubtful in several places. The praenomen Αὔλου, however, seems from a facsimile by Lepsius to be quite certain. It was so given also by Letronne; but the Corp. inscr. Graec. reads Λυ[κίου].—Flaccus is also mentioned in Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4957, lin. 27.
[887] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 3-4, Opera, ed. Mangey, ii. 518-520.—On the death of young Tiberius, see also Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 4-5, Mangey, ii. 549 sq.; Dio Cassius, lix. 8; Suetonius, Caligula, 23. On the death of Nävius Sertorius Macro (after the overthrow of Sejanus, A.D. 31, praefactus praetorio, see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 402); Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 6-8, Mangey, ii. 550-554; Dio Caasius, lix. 10; Suetonius, Caligula, 26.—The death of Tiberius, according to Dio Cassius, l.c., occurred in A.D. 37; that of Macro in A.D. 38.
The presence of the Jewish king Agrippa in Alexandria gave the ostensible occasion for the outbreak of the persecution of the Jews. He arrived in Alexandria, on his homeward journey from Rome to Palestine, in August A.D. 38. Although, as Philo has assured us, he avoided everything calculated to produce a commotion, the mere appearance of a Jewish king was an offence to the mob of Alexandria. Agrippa was first of all treated with indignity and insult in the gymnasium, and then exposed to ridicule in the performances of a pantomime. A man called Karabas, suffering from mental derangement, was decked in uniform similar to the king’s dress, and was mockingly greeted as king, the people addressing him in the Syrian as Μάριν, Lord.[888] The mob, however, once roused to riot, was not disposed to be pacified. They now insisted upon placing statues of the emperor in the Jewish synagogues, called by Philo simply προσευχαί. Flaccus did not venture to oppose them, but rather agreed to all the demands of the enemies of the Jews. These again, the more the governor seemed disposed to yield to them, became the more extravagant in their demands. Flaccus gave permission successively to the setting up of images in the synagogues, to the pronouncing of the Jews, by an edict, no longer in the enjoyment of the rights of citizens, and, finally, he gave his sanction to a general persecution of the Jews.[889] Dreadful sufferings were now endured by the Jewish population of Alexandria. Their houses and warehouses were plundered; the Jews were themselves maltreated, murdered, the bodies mutilated; others publicly burned; others, again, dragged alive through the streets. The synagogues were, some of them destroyed, others profaned by the setting up of the image of Caligula as a god; in the largest synagogue the image of Caligula was set up on a high damaged Quadriga, which they had dragged thither from the gymnasium.[890] The governor Flaccus not only let all this go on without interfering, but also himself proceeded with severe measures against the Jews, for which, according to Philo, he had no other reason than the refusal of the Jews to take part in the worship of the emperor. He caused thirty-eight members of the Jewish Gerousia to be carried bound into the theatre, and there to be scourged before the eyes of their enemies, so that some of them died under the infliction of the lash, and others were thrown into long and severe illnesses.[891] A centurion was commanded to search with a select band through the houses of the Jews for arms. Jewish women were compelled before spectators in the theatre to partake of swine’s flesh.[892] Flaccus had even before this shown his hostility to the Jews by failing to send to the emperor, as he had promised to do, but retaining in his own possession, a petition from the Jewish community, in which an explanation was given of the attitude of the Jews in reference to the honours demanded by the emperor. This writing was first sent up by Agrippa, with a statement of the reason of the delay.[893]
[888] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 5-6, ed. Mangey, ii. 521 sq.
[889] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 6-8, ed. Mangey, ii. 523-525.—Philo distinguishes in the career of Flaccus three stages: (1) Sec. 6 fin.: ἐπιτρέπες ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀνάθησιν. (2) Sec. 8 init.: ὀλίγαις ὕστερον ἡμέραις τίθησι πρόγραμμα, διʼ οὖ ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας ἡμᾶς ἀπεκάλει; (3) ibid. εἶτα δυσὶ τοῖς προτέροις καὶ τρίτον προσέθηκεν, ἐφεὶς ὡς ἐν ἁλώσει τοῖς ἐθέλουσι πορθεῖν Ἰουδαίους.
[890] Plundering of houses: Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 8, ed. Mangey, ii. 525; Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 18, ed. Mangey, ii. 563.—Massacre of the Jews: Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 9, ed. Mangey, ii. 526 sq.; Legat. at Cajum, sec. 19, ed. Mangey, ii. 564,—Destruction and profanation of the synagogues or proseuchae: Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 20, ed. Mangey. ii. 565.—The plundering, according to Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 11, ed. Mangey, ii. 531 init., extended to four hundred houses.—In Div. II. vol. iii. p. 349, following Mangey’s note, ii. 564, and Köstlin in Theologische Jahrbb. 1854, p. 398, I expressed myself to the effect that the persecution described in the Legat. ad Cajum is another than that described in the treatise In Flaccum, Subsequent examination of the facts, however, has convinced me that the two are identical, as I had previously, with many others, maintained in the first edition of this work. The details are so precisely the same that their identity cannot be doubted. Compare especially, In Flaccum, sec. 9; Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 19. Sometimes there is even a verbal agreement, as, In Flaccum, sec. 9, ed. Mangey, 527: φρυγανα συλλέγοντες καπνῷ τὸ πλέον ἢ πυρὶ διέφθειρον; and Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 19, ed. Mangey, ii. 564: οἱ δὲ ἡμίφλεκτοι καπνῷ τὸ πλέον ἢ πυρὶ διεφθείροντο τῆς φρυγανώδους ὕλης. It does not, however, give one the impression of literary dependence. The relationship is, from a literary point of view, very free, as it would naturally be if the same writer described at different times the same incidents.
[891] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 10, ed. Mangey, ii. 527-529.
[892] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 11, ed. Mangey, ii. 529-531.
[893] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 12, ed. Mangey, ii. 531, 532.
We are not in possession of any detailed information as to the circumstances of the Alexandrian community after the severe persecution of the autumn of A.D. 38 down to the death of Caligula in January A.D. 41. In autumn of A.D. 38 Flaccus was suddenly, at the command of the emperor, carried as a prisoner to Rome, and banished to the island of Andros in the Aegean Sea, where subsequently he was, together with other distinguished exiles, put to death by the orders of Caligula.[894] Who his successor was is unknown.[895] It may be accepted as highly probable that the Jews did not get back their synagogues during Caligula’s lifetime, and that the worship of the emperor continued a burning question, and one involving the Jews in danger. In A.D. 40, probably in spring, in consequence of the still continuing conflicts between the heathen and Jewish population of Alexandria, an embassy from both parties went to the emperor to complain against one another, and seek to win over the emperor to their side. The leader of the Jewish embassy was Philo; the leader of his opponents was the scholar Apion. The result was unfavourable to the Jews. They were ungraciously received by the emperor, and were obliged to return without having effected their object. So Josephus briefly tells the story.[896] A few incidents connected with this embassy are also told by Philo in his work about Caligula. But it is difficult to obtain any definite information from these fragmentary notices. Without having referred to the sending of one of the two embassies, Philo first of all states that the ambassadors of the Alexandrians won over completely to their interests the slave Helicon, a favourite of Caligula. When the Jews perceived this, they made similar endeavours on their part, but in vain.[897] They then concluded to pass on to the emperor a written statement, which contained the main points embraced in the petition shortly before sent in by King Agrippa. Caligula received the Jewish ambassadors first of all in the Campus Martius at Rome, and promised to hear them at a convenient time.[898] The ambassadors then followed the emperor to Puteoli, where, however, they were not received.[899] Only at a later period—we know not how much later—the promised audience took place at Rome, in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, at which the emperor—while he inspected the works that were going on, and gave orders regarding them—caused the Jews to keep moving on always behind him, throwing out to them now and again a contemptuous remark, amid the applause of the ambassadors of the other party, until at last he dismissed them, declaring that they were to be regarded rather as foolish than as wicked men, since they would not believe in his divinity.[900]
[894] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 12-21, ed. Mangey, ii. 532-544—The chronological data for the incidents above recorded converge upon the autumn of A.D. 38. Compare Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1534-1538. Agrippa arrived at Alexandria favoured by the trade-winds (ἐτήσιοι, In Flaccum, sec. 5, ed. Mangey, ii. 521), which blow from the 20th of July for the space of thirty days (Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii. 47. 124, xviii. 28. 270). The scourging of the thirty-eight members of the Jewish Gerousia took place on Caligula’s birthday (In Flaccum, sec. 10, ed. Mangey, ii. 529), i.e. on the 31st August (Suetonius, Caligula, 8). The departure of Flaccus, which occurred soon after this, took place during the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles (In Flaccum, see. 14 init. ed. Mangey, ii. 534); therefore in September or October.—The year 38 is obtained from the two following facts: (1) Agrippa returned from Rome to Palestine in the second year of Caligula (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 11). (2) The Jewish warehouses were plundered when they had been closed on account of the mourning for Drusilla, the sister of Caligula (Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 8, ed. Mangey, ii. 525). But she died in A.D. 38 (Dio Caesius, lix. 10-11).
[895] According to Dio Cassius, lix. 10, Caligula had appointed Macro governor of Egypt But he, while still Flaccus was governor of Egypt, was compelled to commit suicide (Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 3-4, ed. Mangey, ii. 519). He therefore never actually entered upon his governorship. Compare generally on the governors of Egypt, Corpus Inscr. Graec. t. iii. p. 310 sq.
[896] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 1.—According to Josephus the two embassies consisted each of three men; according to Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 46, ed. Mangey, ii. 600, the Jewish embassy consisted of five men.
[897] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 25-26, ed. Mangey, ii 570 (Helicon); ibid. sec. 27, ed. Mangey, ii. 571 (the ambassadors of the Alexandrians); ibid. secs. 27-28, ed. Mangey, ii. 571 sq. (how the Jewish ambassadors vainly entreated Helicon to secure them an audience).
[898] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 28, ed. Mangey, ii. 572 (the narrator here speaks evidently, in the first person, of himself).
[899] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573.
[900] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 44-46, ed. Mangey, ii. 597-600.—In the narrative of Philo, it is remarkable that he speaks about the complaints of the Alexandrian and Jewish ambassadors in Rome without having made any mention of the sending of the embassies. Possibly there is some gap in the text that has come down to us. So Massebieau, Le classement des oeuvres de Philon [Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences religieuses, vol. i. Paris 1889], p. 65 sqq. But this hypothesis seems to me quite unnecessary; for Philo does not by any means propose to tell the history of this embassy, as one might suppose from the false title, which was not given by Philo himself. His theme is rather the same as that of Lactantius in his treatise, De Mortibus Persecutorum: that the persecutors of the pious are punished by God. So correctly Massebieau. As with Flaccus, so also with Caligula—first of all his evil deeds are enumerated, and then the divine retribution; only this second half of the treatise about Caligula is no longer extant. The Jews are here, therefore, not the principal figures, but Caligula; and so the Jewish embassy from Alexandria to Rome is quite a subordinate matter. From this point of view, also, other difficulties are probably to be explained. Caligula was absent from Rome on an expedition to Gaul from the autumn of A.D. 39 till the 31st August A.D. 40 (see above, p. 36). Did the twice-repeated reception of the embassy take place before or after the expedition? According to Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573 fin., the ambassadors made the sea journey during the winter (χειμῶνος μέσου). Since the business on which they were engaged had become a matter of burning interest in consequence of the great persecution of autumn A.D. 38, we would naturally at first fix the date of the journey in the winter of A.D. 38-39. This view is favoured by the circumstance that the written apology which the ambassadors laid before the emperor is said to have been of similar contents with that “shortly before” (πρὸ ὀλίγου) sent by Agrippa, on the occasion of his visit to Alexandria (Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 28, ed. Mangey, ii. 572), which undoubtedly refers to the same affair as has been narrated above on p. 95. For these reasons Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1539-1540, places the setting out of the embassy in the end of A.D. 38, its first reception in the Campus Martius and going down to Puteoli in the beginning of A.D. 39, before the expedition to Gaul (ibid. n. 1551, 1557); but the second audience, in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, after the Gallic campaign, in the autumn of A.D. 40 (ibid. n. 1600). Keim, Jesus of Nasara, i. 281, reaches, as it seems, the same result. But this arrangement is really impossible, because the ambassadors first received at Puteoli the news that Caligula had ordered his statue to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573). This, as the following exposition will show, cannot have happened before the spring of A.D. 40. We are therefore obliged to net even the first reception, and the immediately following movement down to Puteoli, in the autumn of A.D. 40, after the Gallic campaign. That during this period, also, Caligula was once at Puteoli may be concluded from Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxii. 1, 4, where mention is made of Caligula’s return “from Astura to Antium” not long before his death. The second audience, in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, at any rate took place after the expedition to Gaul; for the ambassadors there refer to the fact that the Jews had offered sacrifices for the emperor κατὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς Γερμανικῆς νίκης (Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 45, ed. Mangey, ii. 598). If, therefore, the audiences of the Jews with Caligula are not to be assigned to an earlier date than autumn of A.D. 40, the question may be raised whether their winter journey should not be referred to the late autumn of A.D. 40? This is the opinion of Grätz, expressed in his treatise referred to above on p. 91. This date, however, would be too late, since it could not then be explained how the ambassadors first heard in Puteoli of events which had occurred in Palestine as early as the beginning of summer. It is therefore to be assumed that the ambassadors made their journey in the end of the winter of A.D. 39-40, waited in Rome for Caligula’s return, and in autumn were received by him. So Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, t i. p. 457; Delaunay, Philon d’Alexandrie, p. 180; also Noris, Opera, ii. 659 sq.; and Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, p. 313. Sanclemente opposes Noris’ opinion, that the audience described by Philo, sees. 44-45, occurred before the going down to Puteoli referred to in sec. 29. But whether we accept this combination or that, in any case we fail to discover in Philo’s exposition not only an account of the sending out of the Jewish-Alexandrian embassy, but also a full and comprehensive account of what befell it in Rome. Still more singular is it that Philo should have communicated nothing about the state of affairs in Alexandria itself from autumn A.D. 38 till Caligula’s death, so that it is not explained why the embassy did not start till eighteen months after the great persecution. But all this may be satisfactorily explained if we accept what we said above as to the purpose of the writing.
Affairs at Alexandria remained in suspense down to the death of Caligula. One of the first acts of the new emperor, Claudius, was to issue an edict by which all their earlier privileges were confirmed to the Alexandrian Jews, and the unrestricted liberty to practise their own religion was anew granted them.[901]
[901] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 2.
While the Alexandrian embassy to Rome waited for the imperial decision, a serious storm burst upon the mother country of Palestine. It had its origin in Jamnia, a town on the Philistine coast which was mainly inhabited by Jews. When the heathen inhabitants of that place, in order to show their zeal for Caesar and at the same time to aggravate the Jews, erected a rude altar to the emperor, this was immediately again destroyed by the Jews. The incident was reported by the imperial procurator of the city, Herennius Capito,[902] to the emperor, who, in order to avenge himself upon the refractory Jews, gave orders that his statue should be set up in the temple of Jerusalem.[903] As it was foreseen that such an attempt would call forth violent opposition, the governor of Syria, P. Petronius, received a command to have the one half of the army[904] stationed “on the Euphrates,” i.e. in Syria, in readiness to proceed to Palestine, in order by their assistance to carry out the will of the emperor. This moderate and reasonable man obeyed the childish demand with a heavy heart during the winter of A.D. 39-40. While he was getting the statue prepared in Sidon, he gathered about him the heads of the Jewish people, and sought to persuade them to yield with a good grace; but all in vain.[905]
[902] He was not as Philo names him: φόρων ἐκλογεὺς τῶν τῆς Ἰουδαίας, but only ὁ τῆς Ἰαμνείας ἐπίροπος (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3). Jamnia was merely a private estate of the emperor (Antiq. xviii. 2. 2).—Should not also in the text of Philo Ἰαμνείας be read instead of Ἰουδαίας?
[903] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 30, ed. Mangey, ii. 575 sq.
[904] According to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2, two legions; according to Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 1, three. The former statement is the correct one; for in Syria there were four legions (see above, p. 50). When therefore Philo, sec. 31, says “the half,” this agrees with Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2.
[905] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 31, ed. Mangey, ii. 576-579.—The date is determined by the fact that the negotiations following at Ptolemais took place during harvest, therefore between Passover and Pentecost and in the year 40, as the current report declares. But since, according to Antiq. xviii. 8. 2, Petronius had gone into his winter quarters at Ptolemais, he must have gone there in winter, A.D. 39-40. Josephus’ words are certainly calculated to give one the impression that these events did not occur till the winter of A.D. 40-41. See vol. i. p. 365.
Soon the news of what was proposed spread over all Palestine, and now the people assembled in great crowds at Ptolemais, where Petrouius had his headquarters. “Like a cloud the multitude of the Jews covered all Phoenicia.” Well arranged, divided into six groups—old men, able-bodied men, boys, old women, wives and maidens, the mass deputation appeared before Petronius. Their mournful complaints and groans made such an impression upon Petronius that he resolved at all hazards to make the attempt to put off the decision for a time at least.[906] The full truth, that he really wished to have a stop put to the whole business, he dared not indeed write to the emperor. He wrote him rather that he entreated for delay, partly because time was required for the preparing of the statue, partly because the harvest was approaching, which it would be advisable to see gathered in, since otherwise the exasperated Jews might in the end destroy the whole harvest. When Caligula received that letter, he was greatly enraged at the dilatoriness of his governor. But he did not venture to give expression to his wrath, but wrote him a letter of acknowledgment in which he praised his prudence, and only advised him to proceed as quickly as possible with the preparation of the statue, since the harvest would be already about an end.[907]
[906] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 32 f., ed. Mangey, ii. 579-582; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 1-3.
[907] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 33-34, ed. Mangey, ii. 582-584. This correspondence does not occur to be identical with that spoken of by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2; for the latter had taken place before the proceedings at Ptolemais.
Petronius, however, did not even yet proceed with any vigour in the matter, but entered anew into negotiations with the Jews. Yea, even late in autumn, down to the season of sowing in November, we find him at Tiberias besieged for forty days by crowds of people to be numbered by thousands, who besought him with tears that he would yet save the country from the threatened horror of temple desecration. When at length Aristobulus also, the brother of King Agrippa and other relatives of his joined their prayers to those of the people, Petronius resolved to take the decisive step of asking the emperor to revoke his order. He led his army back from Ptolemais to Antioch, and set before the emperor, in a letter which he sent for this purpose to Caligula, how upon grounds of equity and prudence it would be advisable to recall the offensive edict.[908]
[908] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 3-6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 3-5. The recall of the army is merely mentioned in Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5.
Meanwhile affairs at Rome affecting matters in question had taken a more favourable turn. King Agrippa I., who in spring of the year 40 had left Palestine, met with Caligula in Rome or at Puteoli in autumn, when the emperor had just returned from his German campaign.[909] He had as yet heard nothing of what was going on in Palestine. But the glance of the emperor’s eye assured him that he was nursing secret wrath in his heart. When he sought in vain for the cause of such feelings, the emperor observed his embarrassment, and let him know in a very ungracious tone what the cause of his displeasure was. The king on hearing this was so horror-stricken that he fell into a fainting fit, from which he did not recover till the evening of the following day.[910] On his recovery he made it his first business to address a supplication to the emperor, in which he endeavoured to persuade him to recall his order by showing that none of his predecessors had ever attempted anything of that sort.[911] Contrary to all expectation, the letter of Agrippa had the desired effect. Caligula caused a letter to be written to Petronius, commanding that nothing should be changed in the temple at Jerusalem. The favour was certainly not unmixed; for along with this order there was an injunction that no one who should erect a temple or altar to the emperor outside of Jerusalem should be hindered from doing so. A good part of the concession that had been made was thus again withdrawn; and it was only owing to the circumstance that no one took advantage of the right thus granted, that new disturbances did not arise out of it. The emperor, indeed, soon repented that he had made that concession. And so, as he made no further use of the statue that had been prepared at Sidon, he ordered a new one to be made in Rome which he intended himself, in his journey to Alexandria which he had in prospect, to put ashore on the coast of Palestine as he passed, and have it secretly brought to Jerusalem.[912] Only the death of the emperor that soon followed prevented the carrying out of this enterprise.
[909] That Agrippa had left Palestine as early as spring may be deduced from this, that he knew nothing of what had been going on in Palestine when he arrived in Rome. He cannot, however, have been in company with Caligula in Gaul, as Dio Cassius, lix. 24, conjectures, but must have gone first to Rome or Puteoli, some time after the return of Caligula from his campaign on 31st August A.D. 40. For had Agrippa’s intervention that was crowned with success already occurred in Gaul, it would not have been only after Caligula’s return, and after they had followed the emperor to Puteoli, that the Alexandrian ambassadors would have first heard the sad news about the affairs of Palestine, as was the case (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573). The intervention of Agrippa must therefore have taken place after that time. It therefore follows from this that Petronius, late in autumn, in the time of sowing, and not long before Caligula’s death, therefore somewhere about November, petitioned for the revoking of the order. He cannot therefore have then had in his hands Caligula’s decision in reference to the matter; and this cannot in that case have been agreed upon in Rome earlier than some time in September or October.—That the intervention of Agrippa took place in A.D. 40 is made plain on general grounds from the contents of his supplication, in which he designates himself as already in possession of Galilee (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 41, ed. Mangey, ii 593).
[910] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 35, ed. Mangey, ii. 584-586.
[911] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 36-41, ed. Mangey, ii. 586-594.
[912] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 42-43, ed. Mangey, ii. 594, 595. The projected journey to Alexandria is also mentioned in sec. 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 583, and in Suetonius, Caligula, c. 49.—A somewhat different account of Agrippa’s intervention is given by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 7-8. According to him, on a particular occasion when Agrippa had won the special good will of the emperor by means of a luxurious banquet, Caligula demanded of the Jewish king that he should ask of him any favour that he desired, whereupon he besought the emperor for the revocation of the order to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem. The result, according to Josephus, was the same, namely, that the prayer was granted.
For the person of Petronius as well as for the land of Judea the death of the emperor was a favourable occurrence. When, further, Caligula, after he himself had arranged for the stopping of proceedings, received the letter of Petronius expressing the wish referred to, he fell into a furious passion about the disobedience of this officer, and caused a command immediately to be issued, that as a punishment for that he should take away his own life. Soon thereafter, however, Caligula was murdered, 24th January A.D. 41; and Petronius received the news thereof twenty-seven days before the messengers arrived with the order for self-destruction; for these, in consequence of unfavourable weather, had been three full months upon their way. There was now just as little idea of carrying out the order for self-murder as there was of setting up the statue in the temple of Jerusalem.[913]
[913] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 8-9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5.—Compare also, generally, the Jewish tradition in Derenbourg, p. 207 sq.
The order of succession in time of the different incidents recorded may be set forth in something like the following arrangement. It must be here presupposed that the transmission of news from Rome or Gaul to Jerusalem, and vice versâ, would ordinarily take about two months:—
Winter, A.D. 39-40:
|Petronius receives orders from Caligula to set up his statue in the temple at Jerusalem, and goes with two legions into Palestine.
|
April or May A.D. 40:
|When harvest was at hand, the negotiations were opened at Ptolemais. First report of Petronius to Caligula (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 32-33; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10.1-3).
|
June:
|Caligula receives Petronius’ first report, and answers him, urging him to make haste (Philo, sec. 34).
|
August:
|Petronius receives Caligula’s answer, hut still puts off the final decision.
|
End of September:
|Agrippa pays a visit to Caligula at Rome or Puteoli; learns of what had happened, and intervenes. Caligula sende to Petronius the order to put a stop to the undertaking (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 35-42; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 7-8).
|
Beginning of November:
|Negotiations at Tiberias in time of sowing; Petronius prays the emperor to desist from setting up the statue (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 3-6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 3-5).
|
End of November:
|Petronius receives the order to put a stop to the undertaking.
|
Beginning of January A.D. 41:
|Caligula receives the petition of Petronius to A.D. 41: desist from setting up the statue, and sends him the order to take away his own life (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 8).
|
24th January A.D. 41:
|Caligula is murdered.
|
Beginning of March:
|Petronius receives the news of Caligula’s death.
|
Beginning of April:
|Petronius receives the letter with the order for self-destruction (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5).
|
This table may still be regarded as essentially correct, even if in some cases the time taken for a letter to travel from Italy or Gaul to Palestine, and vice versâ, might be somewhat shorter. On the average the time may be put down at between one or two months. It deserves, however, to be taken into consideration that Caligula was in summer still in Gaul, and that in winter news travelled slowly and irregularly. The most difficult point in our chronology is this, that Agrippa as well as the Alexandrian Jewish embassy did not hear of Caligula’s order with reference to the temple of Jerusalem earlier than sometime in September (see above, pp. 98 and 101); whereas, according to Philo, the affair was already matter of common talk in Palestine in harvest time, as early as April or May. Tillemont had for this reason given up the later statement of Philo as unhistorical (Histoire des empereurs, t. i. Venise 1732, p. 630 sq., Notes sur la ruine des juifs, note ix.); so also in recent times, Grätz Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 97 ff., 145 ff.=Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. p. 759 ff. But the statements of Philo are on this point so definite and detailed (Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 583: ἐν ἀκμῇ μὲν γὰρ τὸν τοῦ σίτου καρπὸν εἶναι., etc., compare also sec. 34 fin., ed. Mangey, ii. 584) that it seems very risky to have recourse to such violent measures.
The new emperor, Claudius, who had been raised to the throne by the soldiers, immediately upon his accession gifted to Agrippa, besides the dominion which he already had possession under Caligula, Judea and Samaria, so that now again all Palestine, to the same extent which it formerly had under Herod the Great, was united in the hand of a Herodian.[914]
[914] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5.
EXCURSUS I—THE VALUATION CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS, Luke 2:1-5
LITERATURE[915]
[915] The most complete monographs are those marked with an asterisk.—The earlier literature is given by Hase, Leben Jesu, § 23 b; Huschke, 1840, p. 8; Winer, Beälwöterbuch, ii. 292-294; Meyer on Luke 2:2; Gumpach, Studien und Kritiken, 1852, p. 663 f, The more recent especially in Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano (1883), p. 7 sq., and Sieffert in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xiii. 455.
GRESWELL, Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of a Harmony of the Gospels, 3 vols. Oxford 1830, vol. i. pp. 443-524. By the same author, Supplementary Dissertations, Oxford 1834, p. 114 sqq. These works have not been accessible to me.
FAIRBAIBN, Hermeneutical Manual, Edinburgh 1857, pp. 461-475.
[916]HUSCHKE, Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census, 1840 (125 pp.).
[916] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk.
[917]HUSCHKE, Ueber den Census und die Steuerverfassung der früheren römischen Kaiserzeit, 1847 (208 pp.).
[917] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk.
[918]WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Cambridge 1864 (Original, 1843), pp. 95-135.
[918] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk.
WINER, Bealwörterbuch, arts. “Quirinius” and “Schatzung.”
GUMPACH, “Die Schatzung” (Studien und Kritiken, 1852, pp. 663-684).
LICHTENSTEIN, Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Jesu Christi, 1856, pp. 78-90.
KÖHLER, art “Schatzung” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 1860, pp. 463-467.
BLEEK, Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien (1862), i. 66-75.
GODET, Commentary on Gospel of St. Luke , 2 vols. Edin. 1875, vol. 1. pp. 120-129.
MEYER on Luke 2:1-2; also the revision by Weiss; and generally the Commentaries on Luke’s Gospel.
STRAUSS, Leben Jesu, 1864, pp. 336-340; Die Halben und die Ganzen, 1865, pp. 70-79.
ABERLE, “Ueber den Statthalter Quirinius” (Tüb. Theolog. Quartalscrift, 1865, pp. 103-148; 1868, pp. 29-64; 1874, pp. 663-687).
HILGENFELD, “Quirinius als Statthalter Syriens” (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1865, pp. 408-421; 1870, pp. 151-167).
GERLACH, Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, 1865, pp. 22-42.
LUTTEROTH, Le récensement de Quirinius en Judée, Paris 1865 (134 pp.).
RODBERTUS, “Zur Geschichte der römischen Tributsteuern seit Augustus” (Hildebrand’s Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Bd. iv. 1865, pp. 341-427; Bd. v. 1865, pp. 135-171, 241-315; Bd. viii. 1867, pp. 81-126, 385-475. On the passage in Luke, Bd. v. 155 ff.).
EWALD, History of Israel, vi. pp. 155-157.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 116-123.
EBRARD, Gospel History.
[919]WIESELER, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, 1869, pp. 16-107. By same author, Studien und Kritiken, 1875, pp. 535-549.
[919] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk.
FARRAR, Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 7, note; vol. ii. p. 450.
CASPARI, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, pp. 34-38.
[920]ZUMPT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1869, pp. 20-224.
[920] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk.
WOOLSEY, “Historical Credibility of Luke ii. 1-5” (New Englander, 1869, pp. 674-723. This paper has not been accessible to me). By the same author: Review of Zumpt’s Geburtsjahr Christi in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1870, pp. 290-336. Very carefully done.
STEINMEYER, “Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn und seiner ersten Schritte im Leben” (Apologetische Beiträge, iv.), Berlin 1873, pp. 29-41.
SEVIN, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (1874), pp. 20-39.
SCHENKEL’S Bibellexikon, Bd. v. pp. 23-27, art. “Quirinius” by Weizsäcker, and pp. 398-405, art “Steuern” by Kneucker).
HEHLE, Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1875, pp. 666-684; 1876, pp. 85-101 (review of Zumpt’s Geburtsjahr Christi).
MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876, pp. 198-216 (2 Aufl. revised by Dessau und Domaszewski 1884, pp. 204-223).
KEIL (1879) and SCHANZ (1883) in their Commentaries on Luke.
BIESS, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (1880), pp. 66-78.—By the same author, Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi (1883), pp. 59-68.
HOFMANN (J. Chr. K. von), Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. viii. 1 (1878), p. 46 ff.; x. (1883) p. 64 ff.
LECOULTRE, De censu Quiriniano et anno nativitatis Christi secundum Lucam evangelistam, Lausannae 1883 (100 pp.). A review of it in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1883, p. 481.
PÖLZL, art. “Census” in Wetzer and Weite’s Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. Bd. iii. 1884, pp. 1-7.
SIEFFERT, art. “Schatzung” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xiii. 1884, pp. 446-455.
MOMMSEN, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, 1883, pp. 175-177.—By the same author, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 1 (1874), pp. 391-394.
UNGER, “De censibus provinciarum Romanarum” (Leipziger Studien zur class. Philologie, Bd. x. 1887, pp. 1-76). Mainly a collection of inscriptions in which tax-collectors are mentioned.
It has been mentioned above, at p. 79, that after the banishment of Archelaus the imperial legate, Quirinius, arrived in Judea, and there, in A.D. 6 or 7, proceeded to make a census, i.e. a list of the inhabitants, and a reckoning of their landed property, for the purpose of apportioning the taxation. The evangelist Luke 2:1-5, makes mention of a valuation census such as that made by Quirinius; but he places it in the last days of Herod the Great, that is, somewhere about ten or twelve years earlier than that census was really made. It is a matter of debate how this story is related to the similar one recorded by Josephus; whether there were actually two different valuations in Judea conducted by Quirinius, or whether Luke has erroneously set down the valuation that was made in A.D. 7 in the last years of Herod the Great. In order that we may be in a position to form a deliberate judgment on this much-debated question, and generally on the credibility of the narrative of Luke, it is necessary first of all to understand, at least in its most general outlines, the Roman system of taxation during the days of the empire.
The original Roman census, as it was drawn up during the period of the republic,[921] was strictly confined to the enrolment of Roman citizens. It consisted of a list of Roman citizens and their possessions, made for a double purpose: (1) The regulating of military service, and (2) the levying of the direct taxes. The party whose property had to be valued was obliged to present himself before the censor and give in a statement of his possessions; but it was the custom that the father of the family should pay taxes for himself and for the whole family. In the time of the republic there was no one regular valuation census of the subjects of the Roman nation. Valuations were indeed made here and there; but these had no intimate connection or coherence with one another nor with the census of the Roman citizens.[922]
[921] Compare on the census of citizens in the time of the republic, Bein, art. “Census” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 247-257; Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 97-116; De Boor, Fasti censorii, Berol. 1873; Mommeen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 1 (1874), pp. 304-442; E. Herzog, Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung, Bd. i. 1884, pp. 754-797.
[922] Compare on the provincial census of the times of the republic, Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 114-116; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 175-197 (2 Aufl. revised by Dessau und Domaszewski, pp. 180-204).
In the days of the empire, as even before in the days of the republic, the census of Roman citizens had completely lost its original significance; for the Roman citizens, i.e. therefore all Italy and the colonies with Italian privileges, were no longer sufficient for military service, and also no longer paid direct taxes.[923] When therefore Augustus, Claudius, and Vespasian still made valuation rolls of Roman citizens, this was done only for statistical purposes, or on account of the religious festivities associated therewith, but not for taxation purposes. Fundamentally different was the census of the provinces, the main purpose of which was to regulate the levying of the taxes.[924] Even in this direction there existed in the earlier days of the empire a very great diversity;[925] but in general even then those principles had become pretty well established which in later juristic documents (Digest. L. 15: De censibus) are assumed as everywhere prevailing. From these we learn that there were for the provinces two kinds of direct taxes: (1) The property-tax on possessions in land, tributum soli or agri, and (2) The poll-tax, tributum captis.[926] The former was paid partly in kind, partly in money.[927] Under the latter, the tributum capitis, there seems to have been summed up various sorts of personal taxes, such as the income-tax, which varied according to the amount of the income, and the poll-tax proper, which was of equal amount for every caput.[928] In Syria, e.g., there was raised in Appian’s time a personal tax, which amounted to one per cent. of the valuation.[929] This was therefore properly an income-tax. When, on the other hand, Josephus reckons from the poll-tax that Egypt, with the exclusion of Alexandria, had a population of seven and a half millions, he is evidently referring to a tax of the same amount for every caput.[930] At any rate, during the earlier days of the empire, the taxes levied were of the most diverse kinds.[931] Women and slaves had also to pay the poll-tax. Only children and old men were exempted. In Syria, e.g., men from the age of fourteen and women from the age of twelve years, and both up to the age of sixty-five years, were obliged to pay the poll-tax.[932] As to the valuation census of the provinces, i.e. the preparation of lists for the sake of the apportioning of the taxes, the same principles regulated procedure as in the drawing up of the census of Roman citizens.[933] In regard to the one as well as the other, the expressions were used: edere, deferre censum, profiteri; from which it is evident that the party liable had to give in the valuation himself, and his taxes were only controlled by the officers.[934] The taxes had to be paid in the chief towns of the particular taxation districts;[935] and, indeed, the landed estates had to be registered for taxation in those communes in whose domain they lay.[936] At what intervals the valuation was repeated is not with any certainty known. Huschke assumes a ten years’ period for the census, similar to the five years’ period of the earlier census of Roman citizens.[937] Zumpt contests the correctness of this assumption, and believes that by standing taxation boards the list was kept carefully revised.[938] Many hints favour the idea of a five years’ census period. Since the fourth century after Christ it is well known that the fifteen year indiction period became prevalent.[939]
[923] Compare on the citizen census of the days of the empire: Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 116-129; De Boor, Fasti censorii, pp. 30-33, 96-100; Mommeen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1, pp. 310-312, 391 ff.; ii. 2, p. 1012 f.—The last citizen census which was fully carried out, was that of Vespasian in A.D. 74.
[924] Compare, on the provincial census during the days of the empire, the works and treatises referred to above by Huschke (1847), Rodbertus, Zumpt (pp. 147-175), Marquardt, Unger; and, in addition: Rein, art. “Tributum” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2, pp. 2125-2129; Zachariä von Lingenthal, “Zur Kenntniss des römischen Steuerwesens in der Kaiserzeit” (Mémoires de l’académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 7 série, t. vi. No. 9, Petersb. 1863); Bernh. Matthiass, Die römische Grundsteuer und das Vectigalrecht, Erlangen 1882. The two last deal especially with the later period of the empire.
[925] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 156, 176, 187, 211 f. Compare also: Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 185-196.
[926] That there were only these two kinds of direct taxes is plain from Digest. L. 15. 8. § 7 (from Paul in beginning of third century): “Divus Vespasianus Caesarienses colonos fecit, non adjecto, ut et juris Italici essent; sed tributum his remisit capitis; sed Divus Titus etiam solum immune factum interpretatus est.”—Compare Appian. Libyca, 135: τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς φόρον ὥρισαν ὲπὶ τῇ γῇ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν; Dio Cass. lxii. 3; Tertullian, Apologet. 13: “agri tributo onusti viliores, hominum capita stipendio censa ignobiliora.” Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2126.
[927] According to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 4, “the third part of the world,” that is, North Africa, with the exception of Egypt, yielded yearly so much grain, that from it the needs of the city of Rome could be supplied for eight months; and from the city of Alexandria four months.
[928] Huschke, Census der Kaiserzeit, p. 175 ff.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 185-196.
[929] Appian. Syr. 50: Πομπήιος — τὴν μεγίστην πόλιν Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ ἁγιωτάτην αὐτοῖς κατέσκαψεν, ἤν δὴ καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ πρῶτος Αἰγύπτου βκσιλεὺς καθῃρήκει, καὶ Οὐεσπασιανὸς αυθις οἰκισθεῖσαν κατέσκαψε, καὶ Ἁδριανὸς αὖθις ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ. Καὶ διὰ ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν Ἰουδαίοις ἅπασιν ὁ φόρος τῶν σωμάτων βαρύτερος τῆς ἄλλης τεριαικίας. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Σύροις καὶ Κίλιξιν ἐτήσιος, ἑκατοστὴ τοῦ τιμήματος ἑκάστῳ.—Instead of περιοικίας (a conjecture of Musgrave adopted by Bekker) the codd. have περ.ουσίας, which is meaningless, although it is still defended by Huschke, Census der Kaiserzeit, p. 135. The correctness of the conjecture is proved by the context. Appian means to say: On account of the battles under Vespasian and Hadrian, the Jews had to pay a higher poll-tax than the other neighbouring peoples, namely, than the Syrians and Cilicians, who pay an annual poll-tax in the form of a percentage of the sum of the valuation. From Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6, Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7, however, we know that the increase consisted in this, that the δίδραχμον, which had before been paid as a temple-tax (Matthew 17:24), after the destruction of the temple had to be paid to the Romans.
[930] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 4: Αἴγυπτος — πεντήκοντα πρὸς ταῖς έπτακοσίαις ἔχουσα μυριάδας ἀνθρώπων δίχα τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν κατοικούντων, ὡς ἔνεστιν ἐκ τῆς καθʼ ἑκάστην κεφαλὴν εἰσφορᾶς τεκμήρασθαι.
[931] Of Northern Africa, Josephus says (Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 14): χωρὶς τῶν ἐτησίων καρπῶν, ἳο μησὶν ὀκτὼ τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ῥώμην πλῆθος τρέφουσι, καὶ ἔξωθεν παντοίως φορολογοῦνται, καὶ ταῖς χρείαις τῆς ἡγεμονίας παρέχευσιν ἑτοίμως τὰς εἰσφοράς.
[932] Digest. L. 15. 3 pr. (from Ulpian, beginning of the third century): “Aetatem in censendo eignificare necesse est, quia quibusdam aetas tribuit, ne tributo onerentur; veluti in Syriis a quatuordecim annis masculi, a duodecim feminae usque ad sexagesimum quintum annum tributo capitis obligantur; aetas autem spectatur censendi tempore.”
[933] Compare generally: Huschke, Census der Kaiserzeit, p. 192 ff.; Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 170-175.
[934] Huschke, Census, p. 193; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, p. 173.
[935] Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 174.
[936] Digest. L. 15. 4. § 2 (from Ulpian, beginning of the third century): “Is vero, qui agrum in alia civitate habet, in ea civitate profiteri debet, in qua ager est; agri enim tributum in eam civitatem debet levare, in cujue territorio possidetur.”
[937] Huschke, Census der Kaiserzeit, p. 57 ff.
[938] Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 168-170, 189, 205, 206; compare Hock, Römische Geschichte, i, 2. 406.
[939] Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, ii. 236-238 (2 Aufl. pp. 243-245).
So much on the question of valuations and taxation in general. Now, Luke says in the passage referred to, chap. 2:1-5,[940] that about the time of the birth of Christ, therefore certainly while Herod the Great still reigned (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1-22), a decree (δόγμα) went out from the Emperor Augustus requiring that “all the world should be taxed,” ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. By “all the world,” in accordance with the well-known use of the phrase among the Romans, we can understand nothing else than the whole Roman empire, the orbis Romanus. Strictly taken, the phrase would include Italy as well as the provinces. Yet it would be a pardonable inexactness in the use of the expression, even were it found to have been employed actually to designate only a general census of the provinces.[941] Absolutely impossible is the limitation of the phrase to Palestine sometimes favoured by earlier expositors.[942] The verb ἀπογράφειν means first of all only “to register,” and is therefore more general than the definite ἀποτιμᾶν, “to value.”[943] But there is no other purpose of registration that naturally suggests itself than that of forming a basis for taxation (for the Jews were exempted from military service); and certainly Luke has so understood the word, since in ver. 2 he brings this registration (“taxing”) into connection with the well-known census of Quirinius, whether to identify with that taxing or to distinguish it from it. He proceeds in ver. 2 to say: αὕτη [ἡ] ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. Whether the article is to be inserted before ἀπογραφή or not, it is difficult to say, since important authorities may be cited in favour of both readings.[944] At any rate the order πρώτη ἐγένετο is to be maintained over against the isolated readings ἐγένετο πρώτη (א) and ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη (D). For the sense it is almost indifferent whether one insert the article or not; for in the former case it would be translated: “This taxing took place as the first;” and in the other case: “This took place as the first taxing,”[945] while Quirinius was governor of Syria. But it may now be asked, in what sense Luke uses the term “first.” Does he mean to say that it was the first general imperial valuation,[946] or the first Roman valuation in Judea,[947] or that it was the first among several made by Quirinius?[948] The first of these explanations would make Luke assume a number of general imperial valuations. But if, as will appear, even the one imperial valuation census under Augustus is problematical, a frequent repetition of such a census would be yet more problematical. We shall therefore do well in not unnecessarily attributing this serious error to the evangelist. The first tenable explanation then is that mentioned above in the second place. We shall then have to stand by it, if it can be proved that Quirinius only made one valuation census for Judea, and that also Luke intended to refer to that one. Provisionally, therefore, we may assume this as the sense of the words, that the general imperial valuation census ordered by Augustus for Judea was the first which had been made there by the Romans, and that it took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. In this case the only point that we must still, according to p. 111, leave undecided is, whether the valuation census was subsequently repeated at regular intervals of time, or was kept up to date by constant revision of the lists.—In what follows, in vv. 3-5, Luke further states that in obedience to that decree, all (in the land of Judea) went to be taxed, every one εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν,[949] i.e. every one who was away from the native place of his family (his οἶκος), had now to go to that place in order to be taxed there. And so also Joseph went from Galilee to Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife (σὺν Μαριάμ is to be joined with ἀπογράψασθαι, not with ἀνέβη, which is much further removed from it).
[940] Compare in explanation, besides the commentaries: Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 18-32; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, pp. 90-96, 188 ff.; Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, pp. 11-27.
[941] So Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 20-22.
[942] So Paulus, Hug, and others.
[943] Compare Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 19 f.; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, pp. 84-86
[944] The majority of MSS. has the article: it is wanting in BD, also in א which reads αυτην απογραφην; the article is rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, ed. 8, Weiseler, Weiss, Westcott and Hort.
[945] Buttmann, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, p. 105.
[946] So Huschke, Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census, p. 89; Köhler in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 466.
[947] So Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 24, 27; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift, 1870, p. 157; Höck, Römische Geschichte, i. 2. 417.
[948] So Meyer-Weiss on Luke 2:2; and Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 188-190.
[949] So it is to be read, according to אcBDLΞ (with Tischendorf, ed. 8, Weiss, Westcott and Hort), instead of Rec. εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν.
This account by Luke, however, now calls forth the following considerations:—
1. Of a general imperial census in the time of Augustus, history otherwise knows nothing.
Apologetical: Huschke, Census zur Zeit des Geburt Jesu Christi, pp. 2-59; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 66-82; Rodbertus, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, v. 145 ff., 241 ff.; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 147-160; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 204 ff. (2 Aufl. p. 211 ff.); Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, pp. 28-41.
Huschke especially has endeavoured by a series of facts to establish the position that such an imperial census actually did take place, but the want of demonstrative force in this attempt is now to some extent, at least, admitted even by the most decided upholders of the narrative of Luke. Thus Huschke refers (p. 11 ff.), and also even Wieseler,[950] to the rationarium or breviarium totius imperii, a list of the sources of help or supply for the whole empire, which Augustus, as a good financier, drew up, so that he might be able to bring into order again the seriously disturbed financial arrangements of the empire (Suetonius, Augustus, 28, 101; Dio Cassius, liii. 30, lvi. 33; Tacitus, Annals, i. 11).[951] But Zumpt rightly remarks[952] that this, indeed, speaks for the orderly condition of the State administration, but does not prove an imperial census.[953]—Still more unfortunate is Huschke’s reference (pp. 37-45) to Dio Cassius, liv. 35 and Leviticus 13; for in the former passage it is simply said that Augustus as a private man had undertaken a census of all his property (πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά οἱ); and in the other, the reference is only to a census of Roman citizens.[954]—Finally, the attempt of Huschke (pp. 45-53) to call the Monumentum Ancyranum (on which compare what is said in vol. i. p. 115) as a witness on behalf of the general imperial census completely breaks down; and for proof of this, it is enough to refer to Wieseler[955] and Marquardt.[956]
[950] Chronological Synopsis, p. 73 f.; Beiträge, pp. 52, 93.
[951] Tacitus in that passage describes its contents as follows: “Opes publicae continebantur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones. Quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus addideratque consilium coercendi intra termines imperil, incertum metu an per invidiam.”
[952] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 154.
[953] The attempt has, indeed, been made to deduce from the statement of Tacitus a declaration that Augustus had made valuation censuses even in the domains of reges socii. But it will be seen that it is not once said there that the regna paid tribute, let alone that censuses were held in their territories.
[954] Compare Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 75-79; Beiträge, p. 57; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 126, 155. The passage in Dio Cassius, liv. 35, is referred also by Rodbertus to a census of the provinces, although with a meaning somewhat different from that of Huschke.
[955] Chronological Synopsis, pp. 79-82; Beiträge, pp. 58-64.
[956] Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 205.
Of the numerous witnesses whom Huschke had called to prove the fact of the general imperial census, there remain, therefore, only Cassiodorus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Suidas.[957] They all do, undoubtedly, speak of a general imperial census in the time of Augustus.[958] But their testimony loses very much of its value from the fact that they were all three Christians, and lived in a very late period, namely, in the sixth, seventh, and tenth centuries after Christ, which is calculated to produce an exceedingly strong suspicion that they simply drew their information from Luke. The confused rigmarole of the Spanish Isidore is not regarded even by Wieseler[959] and Zumpt[960] as an independent witness. As to Suidas, his dependence upon Luke is quite apparent. Finally, Cassiodorus has certainly used older sources, namely, the writings of the land measurers. But who can give us any guarantee that he did not derive his statement about the census from Luke? At any rate, it is hazardous, considering the silence of all older sources (the Monumentum Ancyranum, Dio Cassius, Suetonius), to accept as historical the isolated statement of Cassiodorus.[961]—The “testimony” of Orosius, on which Riess again lays great stress, though it had long been given up by most, rests, undoubtedly, only upon the narrative of Luke.[962]
[957] Compare Huschke, Census, p. 3 ff.; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 68 f.; Beiträge, pp. 53-56; Rodbertus, Jahrbucher für Nationalökonomie, v. 241 ff.; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, pp. 149-155; Marquardt, Römische S’aatwerwaltung, ii. 205 f.
[958] The passages referred to run as follows:—
[959] Chronological Synopsis, p. 69, note 1.
[960] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 151.
[961] Mommsen also is of opinion that Cassiodorus has derived his statement about the census from Luke. See his treatise on “Die libri coloniarum” in Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, edited by Blume, Lachmann, and Rudorff, Bd. ii. (1852) p. 177.
[962]a Orosius, vi. 22. 6: “Eodem quoque anno [752 a. U.] tunc primum idem Caesar … censum agi singularum ubique provinciarum et censeri omnes homines jussit, quando et Deus homo videri et esse dignatus est. Tunc igitur natus est Christus, Romano censui statim adscriptus ut natus est.”—Compare Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (1880), p. 69 ff.
Cassiodorus, Variarum, iii. 52: “Augusti siquidem temporibus orbis Romanus agris divisus censuque descriptus est, ut possessio sua nulli haberetur incerta, quam pro tributorum susceperat quantitate solvenda. Hoc auctor Hyrummetricus [some editors read: gromaticus] redegit ad dogma conscriptum, quatenus studiosus legendo possit agnoscere, quod deberet oculis absolute monstrare.”
Isidorus, Etymologiarum, v. 36. 4 (Opera, ed. Arevalo, iii. 229 sq.): “Era singulorum annorum constituta est a Caesare Augusto: quando primum censura exegit, ac Romanum orbem descripsit. Dictum autem era ex eo, quod omnis orbie aes reddeie professus est reipublicae.”—On the Spanish era of B.C. 38, the origin of which Isidore here seeks to explain, see Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 422 ff.; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 420 f. (art. “Aera”); Heller in Sybel’s Hist. Zeitschrift, Bd. xxxi. 1874, pp. 13-32.
Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. ἀπογραφή: Ὁ δὲ Καῖσαρ Αὔγουστος ὁ μοναρχήσας εἰκοσιν ἄνδρας τοὺς ἀρίστους τὸν βίον καὶ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιλεξάμενος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν ὑπηκόων ἐξέπεμψε, διʼ ὧν ἀπογραφὰς ἐποιήσατο τῶν τε ἀνθρώπων καὶ οὐσιῶν, αὐτάρκη τινὰ προστάξας τῷ δημοσίῳ μοῖραν ἐκ τούτων εἰσφέρεσθαι. Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ τοῖς κεκτημένοις τί μὴ ἀφαιρουμένων, ὡς εἶναι τοῖς εὐπόροις δημόσιον ἔγκλημα τὸν πλοῦτον.
Many think that they have found an indirect support for the idea of an imperial census in the times of Augustus in the so-called imperial survey of Augustus. But even this is very problematical.[963] We know, indeed, that Agrippa, the friend of Augustus, collected material for a map of the world, and that this map of the world after his death was set up in marble in a corridor. These commentarii of Agrippa were specially valuable on account of their numerous and exact measurements.[964] But it is very doubtful whether the measurements of Agrippa rest upon a general survey of the empire undertaken by Augustus. That such a survey was begun as early as the times of Caesar, and was completed under Augustus, is, indeed, affirmed by some late cosmographers, like Julius Honorius and Aethicus Ister. But it is questionable whether this statement is derived from ancient sources.[965] And even if Augustus had undertaken a general imperial survey, this, evidently, had nothing to do with the census. It could only properly have to do, as all geographicalstatistical materials of the following period show, with geographical investigations, and, above all, with the measuring of roads, with a statement of distances from place to place.
[963] The materials relating to this question are well summed up in a brief form in Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. pp. 200-204 (2 Aufl. revised by Dessau und Domaszewski, 1884, pp. 207-211). In that work at p. 200 (in the 2nd ed. p. 207) the special literature is also given, to which we may now further add: F. Philippi, Zur Reconstruction der Weltkarte des Agrippa, 1880; Schweder, Beiträge zur Kritik der Chorographie des Augustus, 3 Thle. 1876-1883; Detlefsen, Untersuchungen zu den geographischen Büchern des Plinius, 1. Die Weltkarte des M. Agrippa, Glückstadt 1884. Compare also: Hübner, Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die röm. Literaturgeschichte, 4 Aufl. 1878, p. 180 (a list of the literature); Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 220. 12-13.
[964] The extant statements regarding these (especially those in Pliny) have been collected by Riese, Geographi Latini minores (1878), pp. 1-8. Compare also his Prolegom. pp. vii.-xvii.—The principal witness is Pliny, Hist. Nat. iii. 2. 17: “Agrippam quidem in tanta viri diligentia praeterque in hoc opere cura, cum orbem terrarum orbi spectandum propositurus esset, errasse quis credat? et cum eo divum Augustum? Is namque conplexam eum porticum ex. deatinatione et commentariis M. Agrippae a sorore ejue inchoatam peregit.”—The statements in Pliny are evidently not taken from the map, but from Agrippa’s commentarii. See Riese, p. ix. Yet Detlefsen still seeks to prove that they are from the map.
[965] The texts of Julius Honorius and Aethicus Ister are given in Riese, Geographi Latini minores (1878), pp. 21-55, and 71-103. The statement about the imperial survey is made by both at the very beginning.—Julius Honorius is older than Cassiodorus. But it is worthy of remark that in the Cod. Parisin. 4808, saec. vi., which contains the oldest recension of his work (in Riese distinguished as A), the statement about the imperial survey is wanting.
But even although this much is established that, apart from Luke, there is no historical evidence of a general imperial census by Augustus, it may still certainly be regarded as a possibility that Luke alone has handed down to us information about that fact. But even this possibility again would require to be stated with very important limitations. For this reason chiefly we cannot entertain the idea of an imperial census, but at most only a census of the provinces, because in any case Italy would have to be excluded (compare p. 108). But even with respect to the provinces, there was this great difference among them, that some were administered by Augustus through his legates, others by the Senate. It is scarcely conceivable that the shrewd Augustus, careful to avoid all encroachments on the rights of the Senate, should have ordered by one and the same edict a census of the same sort for his provinces and for those of the Senate.[966] Besides this, it is to be noted that we know definitely of some provinces that in the time of Angustus no Roman census had been made in them.[967] The conclusion which we reach the# is simply this, that in the time of Augustus valuation censuses had been made in many provinces.[968] And this is quite likely, since the need for such must have been keenly felt after the confusions of the civil war, and Augustus regarded it as his special task to restore matters to an orderly condition. Zumpt lays great stress also upon the fact that the juristic sources from the beginning of the third century after Christ (Digest. L. 15) already presuppose a great uniformity in reference to the matter of the valuation census.[969] But there is nothing to justify us in carrying that unification back to Augustus.
[966] In general it may be assumed that the emperors from the first claimed the right of arranging for valuation censuses even in senatorial provinces. Dio Cassius, liii. 17, reckons as a matter of course among the privileges of the emperors that they ἀπογραφὰς ποιοῦνται. They must indeed have reserved this right to themselves, because even the senatorial provinces were required to contribute certain dues to the imperial fiscus, and so even in senatorial provinces there were imperial procurators (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 555 f.). But, in spite of the paucity of materials, it has been regarded by Mommsen and Hirschfeld worthy of remark that imperial financial officers have not hitherto been met with in the senatorial provinces throughout the first century of the imperial era. Among the instances brought together by Marquardt, ii. 2 Aufl. 1884, p. 216, and Unger (Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. x. 1887, p. 1 ff.), we find two legati ad census accipiendos in the senatorial provinces, one in Gallia Narbonensis (Unger, n. 1=Orelli-Henzen, Inscr. Lat. n. 1463), and one in Macedonia (Unger, n. 6=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 1463). But the former was the regular proconsul appointed by the Senate, and had been as such appointed by the emperor to draw up the census; in the case of the other, who, in the abbreviated title, is only called cens(itor) provinciae Macedoniae, his position was probably the same (so Unger). Besides, the inscription belongs only to the second century. An imperial procurator ad census accipiendos Macedoniae (therefore in a senatorial province alongside of the proconsul) is met with on an inscription at Thysdrus in Africa (Unger, n. 31=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n. 10,500). But this one also has its origin only in the second century (Unger, p. 58 sq.). Great weight should not indeed be laid upon these facts, for it is possible that even to the imperial provinces the same principles apply: namely, that in the earlier days of the empire the governors were entrusted with the getting up of valuation returns, and only in later times were special census officers appointed alongside of the governors for getting them up (so Unger; compare below, note 125). The main point is, that Augustus, according to all that we know of him, aimed at making it appear that the senatorial provinces were independent.—Compare generally on the imperial right to making a census in the senatorial provinces (and, at the same time, against the idea of an imperial census under Augustus): Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1, pp. 392-394, ii. 2, p. 945 f.; Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Bd. i. 1887, pp. 17-19; Unger, Leipziger Studien, x. pp. 48-59. Hirschfeld holds that it is quite probable “that in the Augustan constitution this sovereign right had been bestowed upon the Senate in its provinces and in Italy,” p. 17.
[967] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 176 f.
[968] In all essential points Zumpt agrees with this view (compare Geburtsjahr, pp. 147 f., 163 ff., 211 f.), only that he goes back to an edict for authority for provincial valuations of different sorts and made at different times. So, too, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 204 ff.; Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, p. 28 sqq., and Aberle, who does not assume an edict, but only a decree of Augustus (Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1874, p. 664 ff.). The idea of an imperial census, which they avowedly advocate, is thus practically abandoned.
[969] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 156-160.
But a further remark on the narrative of Luke is:
II. Under a Roman census, Joseph would not have been obliged to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have required to accompany him thither.
Apologetical: Huschke, Census zur Zeit des Geburts Jesu Christi, pp. 116-125; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 92-95; Beiträge, pp. 65-69, 46-49; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 193-196, 203 f.
In a Roman census the landed property had to be registered for taxation in the commune in whose territory it lay (see above, p. 111). For the rest, the person to be taxed had to enrol his name in the census at his dwelling-place, or at the chief town of the taxation district within which he resided. When, on the other hand, Luke tells that Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David, it is assumed that the preparation of the taxation lists had been made according to tribes, generations, and families, which was by no means the Roman custom. It is therefore usually conjectured (as is done even by Wieseler and Zumpt) that in that census a concession had been made to the custom of the Jews. Now it is quite correct that the Romans in measures of that kind frequently conformed to existing institutions. But in this particular case such a concession as that referred to would have been very remarkable, since this method of conducting the census would be much more troublesome, and would lead to much greater inconvenience than the Roman plan. It is also extremely questionable whether a registration according to families and generations was any longer possible, since in regard to many it could not now be proved whether they belonged to this family or to that[970] It is further remarkable that Luke makes it appear as if Mary had been obliged to travel with Joseph in order to be taxed (ver. 5: ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριάμ). No such requirement could have been made by a Roman census. For although women also were liable for the poll-tax (see above, p. 111), they were not accustomed to appear personally at a census,[971] since the particulars required, as may be concluded from the analogy of the old Roman census, could have been supplied by the father of the family.
[970] See Div. II. vol. i. p. 252. The 15th Ab, on which, according to the Mishna, Taanith iv. 5, “those of unknown descent” brought the wood for the altar of burnt-offering, is elsewhere designated as the day of the general wood bringing. Only particular tribal houses brought it on epecial days. With these tribal houses are also related the remnants of a register of generations still continued down to the times of Christ (Div. II. vol. i. p. 219 f.).
[971] As is still assumed by Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 46-49, and Zumpt, Gebartsjahr Chrieti, p. 203 f.
III. A Roman census could not have been made in Palestine during the time of King Herod.
Apologetical: Huschke, Census zur Zeit des Geburte Jeni Christi, pp. 99-116; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 82-92; Beiträge, pp. 79-94; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 178-186, 212 f.
When Quirinius in A.D. 7 undertook to make a census in Judea, this was quite in order; for Judea had then been converted into a Roman province. On the other hand, Luke would have us believe that a Roman census had been made in Palestine, at a time when Palestine, under Herod the Great, was still an independent kingdom, though under the suzerainty of Rome. After all that we have come to know about the position of the reges socii toward the Romans, and especially in regard to the position of Herod, this seems impossible. Pompey had indeed laid the land of Judea under tribute;[972] and Caesar had rearranged the system of taxation by means of a series of edicts.[973] Even Antony had imposed upon Herod a tribute when he appointed him king.[974] But even granting that Herod had continued to pay this tribute under Augustus, it could not even then be supposed that a Roman valuation census should have been made in his country. Such an arrangement in regard to the internal administration might indeed have been ordered in Palestine after it had become a province, but not so long as it was the territory of a rex soeius.
[972] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 6.
[973] Jesephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 5. Compare also above, vol. i. p. 379.
[974] Appian, Civ. v. 75: ἵστη δέ τῃ καὶ βασιλέας, οὓς δοκιμάσειεν, ἐπὶ φόροις ἄρα τεταγμένοις, Πόντου μὲν Δαρεῖον τὸν Φαρνάκους τοῦ Μιθριδάτου, Ἰδουμαίων δὲ καὶ Σαμαρέων Ἡρώδην, κ.τ.λ.
In order to make the matter conceivable an attempt has been made to point out similar cases, in which presumably in the domain of a rex socius a Roman census was made Thus reference is made to a passage in Tacitus about a census undertaken among the Clitae;[975] Tacitus, Annals, vi. 41: “Per idem tempus Clitarum natio Cappadoci Archelao subiecta, quia nostrum in modum deferre census, pati tributa adigebatur, in iuga Tauri mentis abscessit locorumque ingenio sese contra imbelles regis copias tutabatur.” But it is not here said that in the domains of King Archelaus a Roman census had been made, but only that Archelaus had wished to make a census according to the Roman custom (nostrum in modum) among the Clitae who were subject to him.[976]—Zumpt is of opinion that in the revolt of Judas of Galilee on the occasion of the census of Quirinius in A.D. 7, he has obtained a proof that this census extended not only over the territory of Archelaus (Judea and Samaria), then made into a province, but also over Galilee, since that revolutionary chief must have received his designation from the scene of his operations.[977] But Josephus mentions expressly only the territory of Archelaus as that to which the census applied;[978] and the designation of Judas as the Galilean is, on the contrary, to be explained by the fact that Judas, belonging to Gamala in Gaulanitis,[979] which may readily be reckoned to Galilee in the wider sense, organized this revolt, not in Galilee but in Judea, and was now named by the inhabitants of Judea after his native country, “the Galilean.”[980]
[975] Huschke, Census zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi, pp. 102-104; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 83; Beiträge, p. 94.
[976] Archelaus is probably a son of the one named above in vol. i. p. 456. Another view, but one that can scarcely be correct, is given by Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 182-184.
[977] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 191, note.—On the designation of Judas as Galilean, see Antiq. xviii. 1. 6: ὁ Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας; xx. 5. 2: Ἰούδα τοῦ Γαλιλαίου; Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1: τις ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας; ii. 17.8: Ιούδα τοῦ καλουμένου Γαλιλαίου; Acts of Apostles 5:37: Ἰούδας ο Γαλιλαῖος.
[978] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1: παρῆν δὲ καὶ Κυρήνιος εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίων, προσθήκην τῆς Συρίας γενομένην, ἀποτιμησόμενός τε αὐτῶν τὰς οὐσίας καὶ ἀποδωσόμενος τὰ Ἀρχηλάου χρήματα.—Shortly before Josephus says, xvii. 13. 5: πέμπεται Κυρήνιος ὑτὸ Καίσαρος, ἀνὴρ ὑπατικός, ἀποτιμησόμενος τὰ ἐν Συρίᾳ καὶ τὸν Ἀρχελάου ἀποδωσόμενος οἶκον. In fact, Quirinius did make valuation returns, not only in Judea, but also elsewhere in Syria, as the inscription of Q. Aemilius Secundus, which in earlier times was erroneously treated as spurious, proved, according to which Secundus by the order of Quirinius made a census at Apamea. See above, vol. i. p. 357. But of the Palestinian districts Josephus distinctly names only those that were then included in the province.—It is also to be observed that the Pharisees who put the question to Jesus about the tribute money are those of Judea (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22). Galilee at that time paid no κῆνσος or φόρος.
[979] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1.
[980] That this is correct is made quite evident, especially from Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, where Judas is called ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαῖος, which can mean nothing else than a native of Galilee.
In order to prove the subject position of Herod and the consequent possibility of a Roman census in his domains, it has been pointed out that he was not allowed independently to declare war;[981] that he besought permission of the emperor for the execution of his son;[982] that his subjects also had to take the oath of allegiance to the emperor;[983] that his will required the emperor’s confirmation;[984] yea, even the wrestling games in honour of Augustus and the temples erected to the emperor are requisitioned to aid the proof of the possibility of a census.[985] As if any one ever had supposed anything else but that the Jewish vassal kings were undoubtedly dependent upon the Roman emperor. Even from the Jewish coins Wieseler thinks that he can gather material for the-vindication of Luke.[986] In regard to this it is eminently deserving of notice that there are Palestinian coins of Augustus with the year numbers 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, which, reckoning according to the Actian era of A.U.C. 723, would belong to the age of Archelaus, therefore to the time when Judea was still under native princes. But these numbers are probably to be reckoned according to the Augustan era of 1st January A.U.C. 727, according to which the year 33 would correspond to A.U.C. 759.[987]—It is quite irrelevant when reference is made to the fact that Augustus enrolled Herod among “the procurators of Syria, and commanded that everything should be done in accordance with his judgment;”[988] for from this it follows, not that Herod occupied the position of a subject,[989] but, on the contrary, one of high trust on the part of his patrons and friends. A similar explanation may also be given of the threat once uttered by Augustus under extreme provocation when he said (Antiq. xvi. 9. 3) that “whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject,” ὅτι πάλαι χρώμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ, νῦν ὑπηκόῳ χρήσεται. Wieseler, by a rare style of reasoning, seeks to twist this also into a support for his theory.[990] An exact definition of the position of Herod in the sight of the civil law is certainly not easily given, since Josephus, where one would naturally look for an explanation, omits all reference to the question.[991] In A.D. 30 Herod was by a decree of the Senate anew confirmed in the possession of his kingdom.[992] But in regard to the contents of that decree Josephus gives us no details. Even the remark of Dio Cassius, that Augustus, when, in A.D. 20, he made definite arrangements for regulating affairs in Syria, “arranged the subject domain according to the Roman method, but allowed the confederate princes to rule according to the customs of their fathers,”[993] is too general to permit any very definite conclusion to be drawn from it. It is at least not favourable to the idea of a Roman census in the domains of Herod. The same may be said of the expressions with which Josephus describes the conversion of Judea into a province. They prove satisfactorily that, in the opinion of Josephus, Judea was then for the first time made into a Roman territory subject to the Romans.[994]
[981] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 3.
[982] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10-11, xvii. 5. 7, xvii. 7.
[983] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 2. 4. Compare on this oath, above, vol. i. p. 445. It had, as one may conclude, according to the analogy of the oath formula of Assus, not the form of the oath of a subject, but that of a confederate.
[984] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 4,11. 4-5.
[985] Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 90-92.
[986] Beiträge, pp. 83-89.
[987] Compare on these coins, above, at p. 77, and the literature given there.—The year numbers given as 30, 31, 34, 35 are uncertain; the first two being decidedly doubtful.
[988] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἐγκαταμίγνυσι δʼ αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτροπεύουσι τῆς Συρίας, ἐντειλάμενος μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης τὰ πάντα ποιεῖν. Somewhat differently in Wars of the Jews. i. 20. 4: κατέστησε δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ Συρίκς ὅλης ἐπίτροπον—, ὡς μηδὲν ἐξείη δίχα τῆς ἐκείνου συμβουλίας τοῖς ἐπιτρόποις διοικεῖν.—Compare in addition what is said above in vol. i. p. 453.
[989] As Wieseler still holds in Beiträge, p. 89 f.
[990] Chronological Synopsis, p. 85; Beiträge, p. 83.
[991] Compare on the position of reges socii under the civil constitution, what is said above in vol. i. p. 448.
[992] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7. Compare Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2-3.
[993] Dio Cassius, liv. 9: Ὁ δὲ Αὔγουστος τὸ μὲν ὑπήκοον κατὰ τὰ τῶν Ρωμαίων ἔθη διῴκει, τὀ δὲ ἔνσπονδον τῷ πατρίῳ σφίσι τρόκῳ εἴα ἄρχεσθαι.
[994] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5: Τῆς Ἀρχελάου χώρας ὑποτελοῦς προσνεμηθείσης τῇ Σύρων.—Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1: τῆς Ἀρχελάου χώρας εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης.—Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1: τῆς Ἀρχελάου ἐθναοχίας μεταπεσούσης εἰς ἐπαρχίαν.—Antiq. xviii. 4. 3: οὖ (Archelai) Ῥωμαῖοι παραδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀρχήν.
Beyond the range of these general remarks we are carried by a consideration of the taxation system in the time of Herod, in so far as we are informed by Josephus. Here we find throughout that Herod acted independently with reference to the taxes, and there is no sign of his paying any of the dues to the Romans. Herod remits sometimes a third,[995] sometimes a fourth[996] of the taxes. He even frees the Jewish colony in Batanea from payment of all taxes of every kind.[997] After his death the Jews obtain from Archelaus a reduction of the oppressive taxation, which was therefore at the disposal also of Archelaus;[998] and the Jewish deputation at Rome complained of the burdensome taxes under Herod, in order to base upon this their request that Palastine should not again be put under the rule of a Herodian. But there is no mention of a Roman tax.[999] We have seen then that Herod dealt quite unrestrictedly with the taxation system of Palestine. It will therefore in any case, even if Herod should have paid tribute to the Romans, be quite correct to affirm that a Roman census and a Roman system of taxation could not have been introduced in his country.[1000]
[995] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 4.
[996] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 5.
[997] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 2. 1: ἀτελῆ τε τὴν χῶραν ἐπηγγέλλετο, καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰσφορῶν ἀπηλλαγμένους ἁπασῶν.
[998] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 4.—Wieseler is indeed acute enough to make the tax about which the Jews complained into a Roman one; Chronological Synopsis, p. 90; Beiträge, p. 98 f.
[999] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 2.
[1000] The question whether Herod paid a tribute to the Romans is immaterial for the matter now under consideration as to the possibility of a Roman census; for the payment of a lump sum as tribute is something quite different from the direct taxation of the individual inhabitants of the country on the part of the Romans. But even the idea of Herod being under tribute is not probable, at least there is no proof of it. That Antony imposed a tribute upon Herod (Appian, Civ. v. 75, see above, p. 122), proves nothing in regard to the time of Augustus. When it is said of Caligula that he, on the reinstatement of kings in the realms of their fathers, granted to them “the full enjoyment of the revenues and also what was due for the intervening vacancy during which the kingdom was in abeyance” (Suetonius, Caligula, 16: “si quibus regna restituit, adjecit et fructum omnem vectigaliorum et reditum medii temporis”), we are not to conclude from this that always under other rulers the contrary in both cases was the rule. For Suetonius does not intend in this to point out a special instance of folly, but an instance of good conduct on the part of Caligula. What was extraordinary was only indeed the repayment of the reditus medii temporis. We see, however, from this passage that there was in these matters no very strict rule of procedure. But seeing that there were πόλεις αὐτόνομοί τε καὶ φόῶρν ἀτελεῖς (Appian, Civ. i. 102), it is not probable that kings were in general placed in a worse position. Compare generally the literature given above in vol. i. p. 448.
IV. Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine in the time of Herod: speaks rather of the census of A.D. 7 as something new and previously unheard of.
Apologetical: Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 86-92; Beiträge, pp. 94-104.
In the attempt to weaken the force of the argumentum e silentio drawn from Josephus, two different courses have been taken: some have endeavoured to discover even in Josephus traces of a Roman census in the time of Herod; others have denied that the silence of Josephus proves anything.
Wieseler is of opinion that he has found a trace of that sort in the revolt of Judas and Matthias shortly before the death of Herod,[1001] the cause of which is said to have been the taking of a census; whereas Josephus as clearly as possible assigns a cause of an altogether different kind.[1002] Another trace is supposed to be found in the detailed reports of the large amount of the revenues of Judea, Galilee, and Trachonitis, which are given by Josephus in his account of the partition of Palestine among Herod’s three sons;[1003] as if in order to know the amount of these rents it would have been necessary to have a census of the purely Roman kind. It is a fact far more worthy of consideration that on the occasion of that partition Augustus laid down the condition that the rate of taxation of the Samaritans should be reduced one-fourth, since they had not taken part in the war against Varus.[1004] This is worthy of attention, because it is the only instance of an interference on the part of the emperor in the matter of the taxation of Judea prior to its being made into a Roman province. But certainly we cannot deduce from it the conclusion which Wieseler[1005] wishes to draw, that here we have to do with a Roman tax. On the contrary, the matter treated of throughout is only the revenues of the native princes, Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip; and the mere absence of any reference in this place to a Roman tax speaks strongly in favour of the idea that no such tax was then paid.—Finally, the argumentation is particularly acute, by means of which Zumpt has discovered in Josephus the sought for census, prior to the acknowledged one of A.D. 7. He says[1006] that from the account of Josephus with reference to the census of A.D. 7, it follows “that Quirinius then only taxed the property of the Jews, therefore those who were poor and without property were not taken into consideration.” But now since the poll-tax existing in the time of Christ presupposes also a list of those without property, such a list must have been drawn up previously, even under Herod. In reference to this statement there are only three things that require to be proved: (1) that Quirinius taxed “only the property” of the Jews; (2) that in Palestine in the time of Christ a poll-tax, was in force even for those without property;[1007] and (3) that this poll-tax had been introduced as early as in the time of Herod.
[1001] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 2. Compare Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 88-92; Beiträge, pp. 98-104.
[1002] See above, vol. i. p. 463.
[1003] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. Compare Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 99.
[1004] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 4. 4: Τετάρτου μέρους οὖτοι τῶν φόρων παραλέλυντο, Καίσαρος αὐτοῖς κούφισιν ψηφισαμένου διὰ τὸ μὴ συναποστῆναι τῇ λοιπῇ πληθύι. Compare Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3.
[1005] Beiträge, p. 99.
[1006] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 201 f.
[1007] According to Appian, Syr. 50 (see above, p. 110), it seems rather that the poll-tax in Syria existed only in the form of an income-tax.
In reality, then, Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in the time of Herod. We may not indeed be inclined ordinarily to lay any weight on argumenta e silentio; but in this case the argument is of some importance. In regard to no other period is Josephus so well informed, in regard to none is his narrative so full, as in regard to the last years of Herod. It is scarcely conceivable that a measure so calculated to cut into the very marrow of the people as a Roman census of that period should have been passed over by him, while he faithfully describes the census of A.D. 7, which occurred in a period of which Josephus knew practically nothing.[1008] It ought also to be remembered that a Roman census could not have passed off without leaving any trace behind, but must have occasioned a rebellion as well as that of A.D. 7, yea, much more, because in this case the latter would have been nothing new. The latter argument, indeed, Zumpt thinks to invalidate by making the census in the time of Herod into an innocent registration (ἀπογραφή) of the people for the purpose of the poll-tax, whereas the census of A.D. 7 was a property valuation (ἀποτίμησις), and just for that reason was so offensive.[1009]—The poll-tax had to be paid as tribute to the Romans, whereas the expenses of the internal government of the country had to be met by the property-tax.[1010] But it is in contradiction of all known facts that the tribute to be paid to the Romans should have consisted simply in a poll-tax of equal amount in the case of each caput. Appian says expressly that the Syrians paid a poll-tax of one per cent. of the sum of the valuation.[1011] If, therefore, a Roman tax had been imposed throughout Palestine, it would certainly not have been a mere poll-tax. And even were this granted, it would still be a Roman tax. There must then have been a numbering of the people, who would have made the imposition of this, just as much as a valuation census of the people, the occasion of a tumult. But, finally, that distinction between the ἀπογραφή referred to by Luke 2:2 and the ἀποτίμησις of A.D. 7 completely breaks down before the fact that the latter which occasioned the revolt of Judas of Galilee is referred to by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles v. 37 in the same words as the so-called numbering of the people in the time of Herod, and the ἀπογραφή is simply mentioned as an evident proof that he means in both passages to refer to the same fact.
[1008] Compare above, vol. i. pp. 88, 89.
[1009] So also Rodbertus as early as 1865 in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomis und Statistik, v. p. 155 ff.
[1010] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 196-202. Wieseler also had previously expressed a similar opinion (Chronological Synopsis, p. 96, compare p. 84 f., p. 90 f.), whereas subsequently he reverted to the idea of a poll- and land-tax (Beiträge, p. 98 ff.).
[1011] Appian, Syr. 50 (see above, p. 110). Compare also the grain produce of Africa and Alexandria, p. 110.
The most decisive argument, however, against a census in the time of Herod is this, that Josephus characterizes the census of A.D. 7 as something entirely new and previously unheard of among the Jews. When we find Zumpt attempting to represent the novelty as consisting only in the property valuation (ἀποτίμησις), and Wieseler thinks that what was new and offensive lay merely in the form of the valuation, namely, the judicial examination (ἡ ἀκρόασις) and the obligation to confirm their depositions before a heathen tribunal by means of a definitely prescribed oath,[1012] these fine distinctions, which may possibly be spun out of the story in the Antiquities, are reduced to nothing when we turn to the parallel account in Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, where Josephus expressed himself as follows: ἐπὶ τούτου (under Coponius) τις ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας ὄνομα εἰς ἀπόστασιν ἐνῆγε τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους, κακίζων εἰ φόρον τε Ῥωμαίοις τελεῖν ὑπομενοῦσι καὶ μετὰ τὸν θεὸν οἴσουσι θνητοὺς δεσπότας. The offensive thing, therefore, was not the taxing of property, or the form in which it was carried out, but the Roman taxation as such. This is also the assumption lying at the basis of accounts elsewhere given of the rebellion. Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 1: Ἰούδα τοῦ πείσαντος Ἰουδαίων οὐκ ὀλίγους … μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπογραφάς; ii. 17. 8: Ἰουδαίους ὀνειδίσας ὅτι Ῥωμαίοις ὑπετάσσοντο μετὰ τὸν θεόν. For the Romans at all to raise a tax in Judea was a novum et inauditum. Also from the words already quoted above, with which Josephus tells of the conversion of Judea into a province, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5: τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας ὑποτελοῦς προσνεμηθείσης τῇ Σύρων, if we take them exactly we shall be obliged to conclude that in the time of Herod and Archelaus no taxes were paid to the Romans. For if it was only after the banishment of Archelaus that Judea was made tributary, it follows that it had not been so previously. The same conclusion may be drawn from other two passages. The tetrarchy of Philip was after his death added by Tiberius to the province of Syria, τοὺς μέντοι φόρους ἐκέλευσε συλλεγομένους ἐν τῇ τετραρχίᾳ τῇ ἐκείνου γενομένῃ κατατίθεσθαι (Antiq. xviii. 4. 6). If even after the death of Philip no taxes flowed from his tetrarchy into the Roman fiscus, much less would this have been the case during his lifetime. But of the Jewish colony at Batanea on which Herod conferred the privilege of being absolutely free from taxation Josephus reports as follows, Antiq. xvii. 2. 2: Ἐγένετο ἡ χώρα σφόδρα πολυάνθρωπος ἀδείᾳ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀτελοῦς. Ἃ παρέμεινεν αὐτοῖς Ἡρώδου ζῶντος· Φίλιππος δὲ δεύτερος ἐκείνου παραλαβὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὀλίγα τε καὶ ἐπʼ ὀλίγον αὐτοὺς ἐπράξατο. Ἀγρίππας μέντοι γε ὁ μέγας καὶ ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμώνυμος καὶ πάνυ ἐξετρύχωσαν αὐτούς, οὐ μέντοι τὰ τῆς ἐλευθερίας κινεῖν ἠθέλησαν. Παρʼ ὧν Ῥωμαῖοι δεξάμενοι τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ μὲν ἐλευθέρου καὶ αὐτοὶ τηροῦσι τὴν ἀξίωσιν, ἐπιβολαῖς δὲ τῶν φόρων εἰς τὸ πάμπαν ἐπίεσαν αὐτούς. It is thus made quite evident that the raising of a Roman tax in that district began only when it was no longer ruled over by its own princes, whereas under Herod the Great, Philip, Agrippa I., and Agrippa II., these taxes were raised or not raised at the pleasure of the prince.
[1012] Beiträge, pp. 95-97; Studien und Kritiken, 1875, p. 546. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1: ἐν δεινῷ φέροντες τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς ἀκρόασιν, “the judicial examination in connection with the enrolments.” Whether this translation is correct, may be regarded as undecided. It would also be possible to render ἀκρόασις by “obedience.”
From all that we have learned, then, the conclusion is Roman taxes could not possibly have been raised in Palestine in the time of Herod, and with this result the Roman census as a matter of course falls to the ground.
But, finally, the main consideration that tells against the account of Luke is:
V. A census held under Quirinius could not have occurred in the time of Herod, for Quirinius was never governor of Syria during the lifetime of Herod.
Not only Matthew 2:1 ff., but also Luke 1:5, assumes that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod. He therefore undoubtedly places the census referred to by him in the period of Herod’s reign. But he also says expressly that the census had been made ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου, which can mean nothing else than this, that it took place “while Quirinius had the supreme command in Syria,” i.e. when he was governor of Syria.[1013] Now we know indeed that Quirinius arrived in Syria as governor in A.D. 6, and that he had been in possession of the same office even earlier, in B.C. 3-2. But in the time of Herod he cannot have been governor; for from B.C. 9-6 this office was held by Sentius Saturninus, from B.C. 6-4 by Quinctilius Varus. The latter had to suppress the revolt which broke out in Palestine after the death of Herod, and was, therefore, in Syria at least half a year after Herod’s death. But the predecessor of Saturninus was Titius.[1014] Thus during the last five or six years of Herod, and it is only in regard to them that there can be any question here, there is absolutely no room for Quirinius.
[1013] The official title is, legatus Augusti pro praetore. See above, vol. i. p. 348.
[1014] For proofs, see above, vol. i. p. 350.
This point has caused most trouble to the vindicators of Luke; and their opinions, which hitherto have been tolerably unanimous, now go very far apart from one another. We pass over the older attempts at solution, for the most part of a most arbitrary description (some even venturing upon the boldest alterations of the text), and restrict ourselves to a statement only of those which have their representatives in the present day.[1015]
[1015] The older views are given in Winer, Realwörterbuch, ii. 292-294; Bleek, Synopse, i. 70 ff.; Meyer, comm. on Luke, on the passage.
1. Lutteroth, in order thoroughly to set aside the above stated exegetical facts, has devised the following original explanation. He says:[1016] When it is said of John the Baptist in Luke 1:80, that he was in the deserts ἕως ἡμέρας ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραήλ, by ἀνάδειξις is to be understood, not his public appearance as a preacher of repentance, but his presentation before the people as a child of twelve years, according to the custom of the law. At this point of time the following statement falls to be inserted, that ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις was issued the emperor’s edict about the taxing, which was carried out by Quirinius. It was this also that led to Joseph making his journey to Bethlehem. As a subject of Herod Antipas, he would indeed be under no obligation to do this, as the taxing applied only to Judea; but by his voluntary appearance there he would bring into view his Bethlehemite nativity. Luke, therefore, is perfectly correct in setting down the taxing of Quirinius at the time when John the Baptist was twelve years old. The conclusion of Luke 2:5 is to be translated: To be taxed with Mary, whom he had married when already she was great with child (therefore twelve years before the taxing). To this earlier time then ver. 6 again reverts: And just there, in Bethlehem, were they also when Mary (twelve years before the taxing) brought forth her first-born son, etc. The explanation belongs to the number of those which may excite admiration for their acuteness, but stand in no need of confutation.
[1016] Le récensement de Quirinius en Judée, Paris 1865, pp. 29-44.
2. Huschke,[1017] Wieseler,[1018] Ewald,[1019] Caspari[1020] assign to the superlative πρῶτος a practically or exclusively comparative significance, and translate: This taxing was made when first, or before, Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke therefore expressly distinguishes the taxing made under Herod as an earlier one from the later one made under Quirinius. That this translation in case of need might be justifiable may be admitted (John 1:15; John 1:30).[1021] But even then it is by no means proved that it is the correct translation. It is indeed absolutely inconceivable for what purpose Luke should have made the idle remark, that this taxing took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Why would he not rather name the governor under whom it did take place? It may indeed be said that he distinguishes the earlier census under Herod from the later under Quirinius. But Luke does not really even do this, according to that translation. He says not: “This taxing took place earlier than that made under Quirinius” (which would have required something like this: αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο τῆς Κυρηνίου Συρίας ἡγεμονεύοντος γενομένης); but: “This taxing took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” So also Wieseler translates, and the analogy of all instances adduced by him (Chronological Synopsis, pp. 102, 103; Beiträge, pp. 30-32)[1022] admits of no other translation. But no unprejudiced person will find a suitable sense in these words. And to this it should be added, that Luke must here have expressed himself in a manner as involved and as likely to lead to misunderstanding as possible, whereas elsewhere his special characteristic is just intelligibility and lucidity of expression. No one who does not seek after hazardous explanations will be able to understand πρώτη otherwise than as superlative, and ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου otherwise then as genitivus absolutus: as, to name only some authorities, Winer,[1023] Buttmann,[1024] Zumpt,[1025] Bleek,[1026] Meyer, etc., have declared.
[1017] Census zur Zeit des Geburt Jesu Christi, p. 78 ff.
[1018] Chronological Synopsis, pp. 101-106; Beiträge, pp. 26-32; Studien und Kritiken, 1875, p. 546 ff.
[1019] History of Israel, vi. 155, note 3.
[1020] Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 35.
[1021] Only indeed in case of necessity; for of all the instances which Huschke, pp. 83-85, has brought together in favour of giving to πρῶτος a comparative sense, if we set aside those which are clearly irrelevant, only those remain where two parallel or analogous ideas are compared with each other, but not where, as here, two wholly disparate ideas are before us—the taxing under Herod and the governorship of Quirinius.
[1022] Also Sophoches, Antiq. 637-658:
[1023] Grammar of New Testament Greek, 335. 4, note 1.
[1024] Grammatik des neutestamentl. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 74.
[1025] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 22.
[1026] Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien, i 71.
ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐδεὶς άξίως ἔσται γάμος
μεῖζον φέρεσθαι σοῦ καλῶς ἡγουμένου,
which is to be translated: “To me with right no marriage will have greater value than that thou leadest me well (than thy noble leading).”
3. Gumpach.[1027] Lichtenstein,[1028] Kohler,[1029] Steinmeyer,[1030] J. Chr. K. von Hofmanu,[1031] emphasize ἐγένετο, and translate: This taxing “was carried into effect” (Gumpach), or “was completed” (Kohler, Steinmeyer, Hofmann), while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke distinguishes the issuing of the order for the taxing under Herod, and the execution of the decree, ten or twelve years later, under Quirinius. This hypothesis, apparently the most simple, in reality indeed the weakest, comes into conflict, as we shall immediately see, with the narrative of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, according to which it is not only the taxation decree, but also its execution, which took place in the time of Herod. That explanation at best could have a meaning only if one were bold enough to render the simple ἐγένετο by “came to a conclusion, was carried to a close,” which, however, even the above-named expositors have not ventured to do.[1032]
[1027] Studien und Kritiken, 1852, pp. 666-669.
[1028] Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Jesu Christi, p. 78 ff.
[1029] Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 463 ff.
[1030] Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn, p. 36 ff.
[1031] Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. viii. 1, p. 49; Thl. x. p. 64 ff.
[1032] Compare against that view especially Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 100, 101; Beiträge, p. 25 f.
Ebrard[1033] has advanced what he regards as an improved explanation when he accentuates αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή and translates: The raising of the tax itself, however, took place only when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke therefore does not distinguish, as those critics before named supposed, the issuing of the order for a valuation of property and the execution of it, but the valuation of property (and that not only the order for it, but also the execution of it) on the one hand, and the levying of the tax based upon that valuation on the other hand. There is thus given to the subst. ἀπογραφή a completely different meaning from that given to the verb ἀπογράφεσθαι, which, in the close coherence of the passage, is absolutely impossible. The substantive and the verb alike can mean nothing else than: enrolment, to enrol, and in the strict sense are both specially used of the valuing and enrolment of property. The affirmation that just the census of Quirinius is ordinarily designated by the term ἀπογραφή, and that in consequence thereof this word has, for that particular definite case, the meaning of the levying of a tax (pp. 136 f., 140 f.), is a purely imaginary conception, and not once has the attempt been even made to establish it; for the reference to Acts 5:37, and Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1 ff., cannot be regarded in this light. Instead of αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή it would be necessary to read something like this: ἡ δὲ τῶν φόρων ἐκλογή or εἴσπραξις. In conclusion, that view also is in contradiction to the history; for Quirinius, in A.D. 7, levied the taxes, not merely on the ground of an earlier valuation, but first of all, and chiefly, he was then engaged in making an ἀποτίμησις.[1034]
[1033] Ebrard, Gospel History, Edinburgh, 1869, pp. 136-142.
[1034] New and original is the discovery of Godet, who accentuates αὐτή but expounds as follows (Commentary on St. Luke, vol. i. pp. 128, 129): “Luke breaks off to remark that prior to the well-known enumeration which took place under Quirinius, and which history had taken account of under the name of the first, there had really been another, generally lost sight of, which was the very one here in question; and thus that it was not unadvisedly that he spoke of a census anterior to the first. In this way (1) the intention of this parenthesis is clear; (2) the asyndeton between vers. 1 and 2 is explained quite in a natural way; and (3) the omission of the article ἡ between ἀπογραφή and πρώτη, which has the effect of making ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη a sort of proper name (like ἡ ἐπιστολὴ πρώτη, δευτέρα), is completely justified.”—Cousequently Godet translates: “As to the census itself called the first, it took place under the government of Quirinius.”
4. Seeing then that nothing can be gained by exegetical arts, the attempt has finally been made, even without any such, to vindicate the account of Luke as historical by having recourse to historical combinations. Indeed, Hengstenberg, since the discovery of the famous inscription which afforded evidence of the twice-repeated governorship of Quirinius is Syria, thinks that every difficulty has been wholly removed.[1035] That the inscription in reality proves nothing is quite selfevident after the description we have given of it above (see vol. i. p. 353). But also with the twice-repeated governorship of Quirinius in Syria, which is quite probable even apart from the inscription, nothing is gained toward the vindication of Luke; for even the first governorship of Quirinius cannot at the earliest have begun till at least half a year after the death of Herod (see above, p. 133), whereas, according to Luke, Quirinius must have been governor in the time of Herod. Zumpt[1036] and, after him, Pölzl,[1037] relying for support on a passage in Tertullian,[1038] seek assistance by assuming that the census was begun by Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6, carried on by Quinctilius Varius, B.C. 6-4, and brought to an end by Quirinius during his first governorship. From Quirinius, as the completer of the work, it has received the name; wherefore also Luke says that it was made under him. So far then as Tertullian is concerned, Zumpt himself says in another part of his work[1039] that the Church Fathers “generally are wanting in all historical sense in the stating of the Gospel narrative.” On their statements, therefore, nothing can with safety be built. But in other respects Zumpt’s theory is only a falling back upon the theory of Gumpach and others, referred to under No. 3. The matter then stands so, in Zumpt’s opinion, that either in place of ἐγένετο we must put a verb like ἐτελέσθη, or instead of Quirinius must be put the name of that governor in whose term of office the fact recorded by Luke, the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, took place;[1040] for Luke does indeed intend by mentioning the name simply to determine the time of which he speaks. Thus, as the words imply, the representation that the birth of Jesus Christ took place in the time of Quirinius is necessarily fundamental to the hypothesis, which, however, is impossible. Above all, it is inconceivable that the ἀπογραφή, in the way in which it is represented by Zumpt, namely, as a simple enrolment of the people without a property valuation, should have taken three or four years, whereas the much more difficult ἀποτίμησις of A.D. 7, which, besides, had to encounter the opposition of the people, was completed at farthest in the course of one year.[1041]
[1035] Compare Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1865, col 65 f., where he expresses himself about Strauss as follows: “He is so utterly unfamiliar with the state of matters in those times that he quite confidently repeats the old objection against the taxing of Luke, that Quirinius had not entered upon the governorship until several years after Herod’s death, without having any suspicion of the fact that the question, has long ago entered upon quite another stage by the discovery of a later inscription which affords evidence that Quirinius was twice governor in Syria. This inscription was described as early as 1851 by Bergmann in a special treatise, and has been reprinted in so accessible a book as the Tacitus of; Nipperdey. But Strauss knows nothing of it.”—And Hengstenberg, we add, seems to have known nothing of the following facte: (1) That is 1865 the inscription had been known for a hundred years; (2) that it had been used by as early a writer as Sanclemente, in A.D. 1793, in vindication of Luke; (3) that it absolutely does not contain a testimony to Quirinius having been governor twice; and (4) that even with a twice-repeated governorship of Quirinius nothing is gained in the way of justifying Luke.
[1036] Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 207-224.
[1037] Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. Bd. iii. Sp. 5-7.
[1038] Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, iv. 19: “Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent.”
[1039] Gebursjahr Christi, p. 189, note. Compare also: Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 99, note 2.
[1040] Therefore, according to Zumpt, Sentius Saturninus.
[1041] For it was begun after the banishment of Archelaus, at the earliest in the summer of A.U.C. 759, and was, according to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, completed in the year 37 of the Actian era=autumn of A.U.C. 759-760. It is to be placed therefore late in autumn of A.U.C. 760, i.e. in A.D. 7.
Both difficulties might indeed be overcome were we to assume, with Gerlach[1042] and Quandt,[1043] that Quirinius had been sent to Syria along with Quinctilius Varus (B.C. 6-4) as extra-ordinary legate, and as such had undertaken the census.[1044] In its best and most precise form this theory was represented by Sanclemente, for he assumes that Quirinius had been despatched to Syria as legatus ad census accipiendos, and indeed with a higher authority than the ordinary legate of Syria of that time, Sentius Saturninus.[1045] But this expedient is absolutely inadmissible from the words of the evangelist, since ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου can mean nothing else than “when Cyrenius had the supreme command (or, what is the same thing, the office of governor) over Syria.” Luke therefore undoubtedly considers Quirinius as the ordinary and regular legate of Syria. But this office, as is thoroughly well established on historical grounds, was occupied in the last years of Herod, not by Quirinius, but by Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6, and then by Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6-4.[1046] The statement of Luke then can be indicated historically only if it could be proved that Quirinius had been already in the times of Herod governor of Syria. But such a proof can never be produced, since, Aberle notwithstanding, the contrary is an established fact.[1047]
[1042] Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, pp. 33-35.
[1043] Zeitordnung und Zeitbestimmungen in den Evangelien (also under the title: Chronologisch-geographische Beiträge zum Verständniss der heiligen Schrift. i. Chronolog. Beiträge, 1 Abthlg., Gütersloh 1872), pp. 18-25.
[1044] What Gerlach says at p. 33 f. about the possibility of two governors in one province, proves only gross ignorance of the facts of the case. See against him, Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 43 f.—The case is better with Quandt, who conjectures that Varus occupied a position subordinate to Quirinius (see Zeitordnung, p. 22). But, according to Josephus, there can be no doubt that Varus was in possession of the supreme command in Syria.
[1045] Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, iv. 6, pp. 443-448.—The materials regarding the legati and procuratores ad census accipiendos may be found collected together in Marquardt, Röische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876 p. 209 (2 Aufl. von Dessen und Domaszewski besorgt, 1884, pp. 215, 216) and Unger, “De censibus provinciarum Romanorum” (Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. Bd. x. 1887, pp. 1-76).—It is not yet decided whether there were even in early imperial times special officers of this sort besides the ordinary governors in the provinces. Unger contends against the idea by seeking to prove that in the earlier days of the empire the governors were themselves charged with the business of valuation and taxing, and that in the senatorial provinces it was only in the second century, and in the imperial provinces still later, that special officers of equestrian rank besides the governors had control given them of taxation matters. Of both cases where the governor held also the finance office, and again where special finance officers were appointed, there are several unmistakable instances. The earliest case belonging to the former class is that of Quirinius, who, according to Josephus, as well as according to Luke, was at once governor and censor. Four other instances are collected by Unger, p. 54 f. But the material is too scanty to afford a certain conclusion of a general description.
[1046] Compare against that theory also Huschke, Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census, p. 75 f.
[1047] Aberle (Quartalschrift, 1865, p. 129 ff.; 1868, p. 29 if.), by “the perception of the great, we might almost say, official-like, precision by which such statements in Luke are characterized” (1865, p. 148), has been led to the discovery that Quirinius in fact was governor of Syria in the last years of Herod, and was only detained in Rome by Augustus. Quinctilius Varus was therefore obliged to remain at his post, so that there were at the same time two governors: Quirinius was the governor de jure, Varus, de facto. Luke names the former, Josephus the latter. In opposition to this acute attempted solution it is sufficient to remark that Luke would have only been deceiving us, if, instead of the actual governors who must have conducted the census, he had only named the governor de jure. The words, of Luke admit of no other explanation but that Quirinius was actual governor of Syria.
Only for the sake of completeness we should here mention the discovery of Pfitzner (Programm des Gymnasiums zu Parchim, Easter 1873, pp. 8-13), that Varus had indeed been governor of Syria in B.C. 6 and B.C. 4; but between these two dates, in B.C. 5, a year passed over by Josephus (!), P. Quirinius was governor. If Pfitzner had not only made reference to the work of Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 275, but had also thoroughly examined it, he would on this point have learned his lesson better.
All ways of escape are closed, and there remains nothing else but to acknowledge that the evangelist has made his statement trusting to imperfect information, so that it is not in accordance with the facts of history. This is the conclusion reached by Höck,[1048] Mommsen,[1049] Hase,[1050] Winer, Bleek, De Wette,[1051] Meyer, Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Weizsäcker, Sevin, Lecoultre, and in all essential respects also by Sieffert[1052] The contradiction of history is twofold: (1) Luke ascribes to Augustus the order that a census should be made throughout the whole empire. Of such an imperial census history knows nothing. It is possible that Augustus may have held censuses in many, perhaps in most, of the provinces, and that Luke had some vague information about these. But these numerous provincial censuses, diverse in respect of time and form, could not be referred back to a single edict. Luke has therefore here generalized in a manner similar to that in which he deals with the famine in the days of Claudius. Just as out of the various famines, which, in quite an unusual manner, occurred in various parts of the empire during the reign of Claudius, he makes a famine extending ἐφʼ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην (Acts 11:28, see regarding it below under § 19); so also may the various provincial censuses of which he had heard have become combined in his representation into one imperial census. Should the statement about an imperial survey by Augustus be historical (see above, p. 117), even this might have contributed to the production of his mistake. (2) He knows further that a census in Judea under Quirinius had taken place somewhere about the time of the birth of Jesus Christ. By means of this census he explains the fact that the parents of Jesus travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and places it therefore exactly in the time of the birth of Christ, under Herod, i.e. about ten or twelve years too soon. That Luke was indeed acquainted with this taxing, and was acquainted only with it, is established by the passage in the Acts of the Apostles (5:37), where he speaks expressly of it as “the taxing.”
[1048] Römische Geschichte, i. 2, p. 412 ff.
[1049] Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 175 sq.
[1050] Leben Jesu, sec. 23.
[1051] Exegetisches Handbuch zu d. St.
[1052] All of them in their works before referred to.—Sieffert indeed holds fast by the theory that a census was made in Palestine by the emperor’s orders under Herod, but admits that the two taxings, that under Herod and that under Quirinius, are not clearly distinguished chronologically by Luke, but are in his picture allowed to blend together.
Whoever thinks that such errors should not have been expected from Luke, needs only to be reminded of the fact that Justin Martyr, who belonged to the educated class, regarded King Ptolemy, at whose instance the Bible was translated into Greek, as a contemporary of King Herod (Apol. i. c. 31). Even Luke himself cannot be pronounced free from other errors; for Theudas, to whom he ascribes the work and movement of Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:36 ff.), can scarcely be any other Theudas than the well-known bearer of that name, who actually lived somewhere about forty years later (see § 19).
EXCURSUS II—THE SO-CALLED TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS TO CHRIST, ANTIQ. XVIII. 3. 3
A list of the literature on this point is given by: Oberthür in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graec. ed. Harles, t. v. pp. 49-56; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. pp. 127-132; Hase, Leben Jesu, § 9; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 558; Heinichen in his edition of Eusebii Scripta Historica, vol. iii. (1870) p. 623 sqq.—The older treatises are printed in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus, ii. 2, pp. 186-286.—Some controversial tracts of the time of Richard Simon are enumerated by Bernus, Notice bibliographique sur Richard Simon (Bâle 1882), n. 110, 230, 238, 239.
From a vast number of treatises and pamphlets we select the following of more recent times:—
I. DEFENDING THE GENUINENESS
BRETSCHNEIDER, Capita theologiae Judaeorum dogmaticae e. Flavii Josephi scriptis collecta (1812), pp. 59-66.
BÖHMERT, Ueber des Flavius Josephus Zeugniss von Christo, 1823.
SCHÖDEL, Flavius Josephus de Jesu Christo testatus, 1840.
MAYAUD, Le témoignage de Joseph, Strasb. 1858.
LANGEN, Theologische Quartalschrift, 1865, p. 51 ff.
DANKO, Historia revelationis divinae Novi Testamenti (1867), pp. 308-314.
MENSINGA, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1889, p. 388 (genuine apart from possible modifications of the text, which, however, have not yet been proved).
II. MAINTAINING THE THEORY OF INTERPOLATION
GIESELER, Ecclesiastical History (Edin. 1846, 5 vols.), vol. i. p. 63.
HASE, Leben Jesu, § 9 (“wholly or at least in part non-genuine”).
EWALD, History of Israel, vi. 138-142.
PARET in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. vii. 27-29.
HEINICHEN in his edition of Eusebii Scripta Historica, vol. iii. ed. 2, 1870, pp. 623-654.
WIESELER, Des Josephus Zeugnisse über Christus und Jakobus, den Bruder des Herrn (Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1878, p. 86 ff.).
VOLKMAR, Jesus Nazarenus, 1882, pp. 335-345.
RANKE, Weltgeschichte, 3 Thl. 2 Abthlg. (1883) p. 40 f.
SCHOLTEN, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, pp. 428-451 (compare the review by Van Manen in Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 1883, p. 608 f.).
MENSINGA, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1883, pp. 145-152 (Van Manen, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 1883, p. 618).
GUST. AD. MÜLLER, Christus bei Josephus Flavius, Innsbruck 1890 (53 pp.).
EDERSHEIM in art. in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography “Josephus. 5. The Alleged Testimony of Josephus to Jesus Christ,” vol. iii. pp. 458-460.
III. AGAINST THE GENUINENESS
EICHSTAEDT, Flaviani de Jesu Christo testimonii αὐθεντία quo jure nuper rursus defensa sit quaest. i.-vi., Jen. 1813-1841. Quaestionibus sex super Flaviano de Jesu Christo testimonio auctarium, i.-iv., Jen. 1841-1845.
LEWITZ, Quaestionum Flavianarum specimen, Regiomon. Pruss. 1835.
REUSS, Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, 1859, pp. 312-319.
ERNST GERLACH, Die Weissagungen des Alten Testamentes in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus und das angebliche Zeugniss von Christo, 1863.
KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. pp. 16-21.
HÖHNE, Ueber das angebliche Zeugniss von Christo bei Josephus, Zwickau 1871, Gymnasial-programme.
D’AVIS, Die Zeugnisse nichtchristlicher Autoren ges ersten Jahrhunderts über Christus und das Christenthum, Sigmaringen 1873, Gymnasial-programme (p. 8: “Probably the whole passage is an interpolation, or rather, perhaps, is thoroughly corrupted by interpolations”).
LOMAN, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, pp. 593-601 (p. 596: a genuine basis is possible, but “scarcely probable.” Compare the review by Van Manen, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 1883, pp. 593-595, 614).
In our manuscripts and editions of Josephus the following passage concerning Christ is found, Antiq. xviii. 3. 3:—
Τίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. Ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων· καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. Καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρʼ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων. Εἰσέτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
“Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, At the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
From the fourth century, when this passage was quoted by Eusebius and others (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. i. 11; Demonstratio Evangelica, iii. 3. 105-106, ed. Gaisford; Pseudo-Hegesippus, De bello Judaico, ii. 12), through the whole of the Middle Ages, the genuineness of this paragraph was never disputed. Indeed, it contributed not a little to exalt the reputation of Josephus in the Christian Church. It was eagerly seized upon as a proof of the truth of the evangelical history. It was only in the sixteenth century that criticism first moved in the matter, and since then to the present day the controversy, pro and con, has gone on uninterruptedly. We may surely be at least unanimous as to this, that the words, as we have them now, were not written by Josephus. Whatever may be advanced in their favour does not amount to much in comparison with the unquestionable indications of spuriousness. Our manuscripts, of which the oldest, the Ambrosianus F. 128 sup., do not go further back than the eleventh century (see above, vol. i. p. 103),[1053] without exception have this paragraph. But this proves only the great antiquity of the interpolation, which besides is vouched for by Eusebius. Over against the old citations since Eusebius stands the fact that it is extremely probable that Origen did not read this passage in his text of Josephus; for, just where one would have expected it, he betrays no knowledge of it.[1054] Even then, in respect of the external evidences, objections are not altogether wanting. But the objections on internal grounds are more decided. If reference be made to the genuinely Josephine style, we may for that only bestow upon the interpolator the praise of having very skilfully performed his task The similarity of style is not sufficient to outweigh the non-Josephine character of the contents. As concerns the contents then, it is clear that whoever wrote the words ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν was distinctly a Christian; for that ἦν is not equivalent to ἐνομίζετο and cannot be rendered: He was the Christ in the popular belief. On this point it is not necessary to say more. But it is also equally certain that Josephus was not a Christian. Ergo: the passage, to say the least of it, has interpolations in it.
[1053] The equally ancient Parisin. 1419, which Gerlach, p. 107, designates the oldest manuscript, contains only the first ten books of the Antiquities.
[1054] In several passages where Origen speaks of James, the brother of Jesus Christ, be mentions it as a remarkable circumstance that Josephus should have made favourable allusion to this man, although he (Josephus) did not believe in Jesus as the Christ. (1) Com. in Matth. tom. x. c. 17 (on Matthew 13:55): καὶ τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν οὐ καταδεξάμενος εἶναι Χριστόν, οὐδὲν ἦττον Ἰακώβῳ δικαιοσύνην ἐμαρτύρησε τοσαύτην. (2) Contra Cels. i. 47: ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς καίτοι γε ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὡς Χριστῳ κ.τ.λ.—It It is scarcely conceivable that Origen would have so expressed himself, if he had known the famous passage.
The point under discussion is simply this: whether there are interpolations in the passage or whether it is wholly spurious. Let us make the attempt to distinguish, and cast out what is suspicious. The words εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή evidently presuppose belief in the divinity of Christ, and betray the Christian interpolator. The following, ἦν παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, might in a case of necessity have been said by Josephus, if it were not that they form the fundamental support of the non-genuine words preceding them. At any rate, the words διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων again must have come from a Christian pen. That ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν was not written by Josephus has been already pointed out. And just as certainly he has not written: ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων. Finally, also, the concluding words want the necessary support so soon as the words ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν removed from the text.
If, now, we examine the passage as thus reduced we shall find that as good as nothing remains: a couple of insignificant phrases which, in the form in which they stand after our operation has been performed, could not have been written by Josephus. If one therefore continues to maintain the theory of interpolation, it cannot at any rate be in the sense of a simple insertion of Christian additions, but, with Ewald, Paret, and others, in the sense of a complete working up in a new form of the original text of Josephus.
But if it is once admitted as an established fact, that of the present text scarcely a couple of words are from the hand of Josephus, is it not then more reasonable to recognise the utter spuriousness of the passage, and assume that Josephus has throughout been silent regarding Christ? That this hypothesis is impossible cannot be maintained. It is known that Josephus wished to represent his people in the most favourable light possible. Therefore he speaks as little as he can of the Messianic Hope, since to his cultured readers it could only have appeared as foolishness, and, besides, would have been an unwelcome subject with the favourite of the Caesars; for in it lay the power of the opposition to Rome. Josephus might casually refer to John the Baptist without making mention of the Messianic Hope; but this would have been no longer possible had he introduced Christ. He could neither represent Christ as a teacher of virtue, like the Baptist, nor describe the Christian community as a school of philosophy, like those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Therefore he will be silent throughout about this phenomenon.
If, for proof of the contrary, we should refer to the subsequent mention of James, the brother of Jesus Christ (Antiq. xx. 9. 1: τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ), in order to draw from it the conclusion that some previous mention of Christ must have been made, it has to be answered, that the genuineness of this passage is also very seriously disputed. Indeed, on the contrary, one must say: the very statements which we have in reference to James prove that Josephus has been interpolated by Christian hands. For Origen, in his text of Josephus, read a passage about James which is to be found in none of our manuscripts, which therefore, without doubt, was a single instance of a Christian interpolation not carried over into the vulgar text of Josephus.[1055]
[1055] See under § 19, in the section on Porcius Festus, and the literature referred to there.
We therefore, although absolute certainty on such questions cannot be attained, are inclined to prefer the theory of the utter spuriousness as simpler than that of the merely partial spuriousness of the passage.