Did the Jews Enjoy a Privileged Position in the Roman World?*

Miriam PUCCI BEN ZEEV Department of History. Ben Gurion Univ.

DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD?*

The subject of Jewish rights in the Roman world [I century BCE-I century CE] received a full and detailed treatment by J. Juster at the beginning of this century: the work was done so well that his monumental Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain, which appeared in 1914, has remained the standard work on the topic for almost seventy years. No substantial change in the picture drawn by Juster was made by subsequent research until the 1980s, when a veritable revolution occurred in the field. Two articles by Tessa Rajak challenged elements of the picture which had never been contested, such as the legal value to give to the documents mentioned by Josephus and the existence of a Magna Carta of Jewish rights1. The time has come to think again about the whole subject. I would like to start from the very beginning, from the commonly accepted assumption that Jews enjoyed a privileged position in the Roman World. It is Josephus who supports this interpretation, calling the Jewish rights dikaia, dikaiomata, axiomata, philanthropa, dedomena, synkechoremena. Some of these terms, like philanthropa and synkechoremena, are in fact technical expressions in use in his time to denote a privilegium2. According to Juster, each right mentioned by Josephus was a privilegium, which would mean a legal enactment concerning a specific person or case and involving an exemption from common rules. Almost a century after Juster wrote his book, virtually every contemporary research dealing with this topic accepts and repeats the idea that the Jews enjoyed a privileged position in the Roman world. The main

*. I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. David Asheri for his valuable suggestions. 1. T. Rajak, “Was There a Roman Charter for the Jews?”, JRS, 74, 1984, pp. 107-123; “Jewish Rights in the Greek Cities under Roman Rule: a New Approach”, Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. W.S. Green, vol. 5: Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context, Brown Judaic Studies, 32, Atlanta 1985, pp. 19-33. We should not forget also the critical evaluation of Josephus' testimony by H. Moehring, “The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquitates of Flavius Josephus”, Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults, I-IV, Studies for M. Smith at sixty ed. J. Neusner, Leiden 1975, pp. 124-158. 2. R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East, Baltimore 1969, p. 193.

Revue des Etudes juives, CLIV (1-2), janvier-juin 1995, pp. 23-42 24 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? features of this commonly-accepted picture can be summarized as follows: Romans granted the Jews, as Josephus clearly and often stresses, the right to live by their own laws. This is interpreted as meaning that the Jews were granted a special, privileged position, because of the special character of their religion: they were in need of a special status, because their Deity could not be inserted in the pagan Pantheon and the normal principle of religious toleration could not operate. The Romans, therefore, had only two options in dealing with the Jews among them: persecution or the granting of a privileged status. Since the Jews were forbidden by their religion to perform acts of worship whose non-performance was considered by the Gentiles to be a criminal offence, toleration of Judaism meant that the criminal character from the non-performance of these acts had to be removed. The Jews, it is maintained, were given all the rights they needed, and at the same time were exempted from all those duties and responsibilities which they declared to be in conflict with their own laws3. One of the most conspicuous examples of this extraordinary position of the Jews would have been their exemption from participation in the cult of the Roman emperor. Is it still possible to consider this picture valid today? Eighty years of epigraphical discoveries and of contemporary research make fresh examination mandatory. The first question to be asked is what should be considered a privilege: that is, what were the privileges usually granted by the Romans to conquered peoples. The best known case is that of the Greeks. When we examine documents relating to Roman policy towards conquered peoples in the Greek world4, we find that the most common privileges were: the granting of Roman citizenship (politeia), which sometimes appears together with the bestowal

3. J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'empire romain, I, Paris 1914, p. 213; on the nature, formation and evolution of the Jewish privileges, see pp. 213-242; A.M. Rabello, A Tribute to J. Juster. The Legal Condition of the Jews under Visigothic Kings, brought up-to-date, Jersualem 1976, p. 220; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, Leiden 1976, pp. 120-143; A.M. Rabello, “The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire”, ANRW, II, 13, 1980, pp. 691-692. The same ideas are found in Rabello's article, which appeared in 1984 (“L'observance des fêtes juives dans l'Empire romain”, ANRW, II, 21, 2, 1984, p. 1289 and in his book, which appeared in 1987 (A.M. Rabello, Giustiniano, ebrei e samaritani alla luce delle fonti storico-letterarie, ecclesiastiche e giuridiche, I, Milano 1987, vol. I, p. 46; vol. II, 1988, p. 667); M. Reinhold, Diaspora — The Jews among the Greek sand Romans, Sarasota and Toronto 1983, p. 74; H.R. Moehring, “Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Josephus”, ANRW, II, 21, 2, 1984, pp. 896-7. 4. They have been collected and commented by Sherk, op. cit. 1969 [in n. 2], (hereforth cited as RDGE) and translated by the same R.K. Sherk, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus, Cambridge 1984 (henceforth cited as RGE). DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 25 of priesthoods, honors, and other non-defined privileges [see the letter of Octavian concerning Seleukos of Rhosos, written between 42 and 30 BCE: Letter II, ll. 9-29: REDGE 58=RGE 86]; the granting of freedom and autonomy (eleutheria, autonomia), freedom and immunity, or inviolability (asylia); and a number of financial exemptions: immunity from compulsory public service (alsitourghesia), exemption from the payment of taxes or tribute (aneisphoria), and freedom from billeting of any kind (anepistath- meia), granted both to holy cities and to private properties. These kinds of privileges are perhaps the most amply documented by sources5. Other privileges mentioned by inscriptions are the right to import and export without taxes [see the letter of Octavian concerning Seleukos of Rhosos, written between 42 and 30 BCE: letter II, ll. 9-11: “[Caesar] imperator...conferred (Roman) citizenship and tax-exemption for all present property on the following terms. ll. 49-52: he may import or export for his own use [from] the city or from the country [- - -] he may export from his own possessions and his cattle for his own need; no government or publican [shall levy on him] a tax for these things]” [RDGE 58=RGE 86], and privileges connected with the military sphere: freedom from military service (astrateusia) [see the letter of Marcus Antonius to the Koinon of Asia concerning the Association of Victorious Athletes: documents published together in RDGE 57=RGE 85, 42-41 or 33-32 BCE]; the right not to give hospitality to Roman soldiers during the winter [see the Antonian law concerning Termessus Maior in Pisidia, 72 or 68 BCE, col. II, ll. 7-10: “No magistrate or promagistrate (or) legate or anyone else shall introduce soldiers into the town of Termessus Maior in Pisidia for the sake of wintering over...”] [RGE 72]; and exemption from war contribution [see the conclusion

5. Sources are numerous: a letter of the praetor M. Valerius Messalla to the city of Teos in 193 BCE (RDGE 34 = RGE 8), two letters from the praetor Spurius Postumius (189 BCE) and a decree of the senate (the date is unknown) (RDGE 1 = RGE 15) concerning the city of Delphi and its territory; the exemption of sacred territory from the revenue contracts of the publicans (89-87 BCE): RGE 59. Of similar content is the document pertaining to the land of Oropos and the publicans (73 BCE): RDGE 23 = RGE 70. Tax-exempt status was granted also to the temple of Nysa (I BCE): RDGE 69 I = RGE 107. In the first century BCE, the grant of freedom and autonomy was granted also to Ilium (RDGE 53) and to Pergamum (RDGE 54). The same privilege was granted to private associations, such as that of the Dionysiac artists (RDGE 44,11.1-9 = RGE 37, written after 146 BCE and RDGE 49 = RGE 62, which include documents written about 84 and 81 BCE) and that of the victorious athletes (42-41 or 33-32 BCE): RDGE 57 = RGE 85. The same privilege was granted also to private citizens in reward of special merits; often the cause was military assistance, such as in the case of three Greek naval captains in 78 BCE (RDGE 22 = RGE 66) and that of Seleukos of Rhosos (between 42 and 30 BCE): RDGE 58 = RGE 86. Sometimes, immunity from taxation was granted along with the citizenship, as in the case of Cyrene: RDGE 31 = RGE 102 (7/6 BCE). 26 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? of a letter by a Roman magistrate to the Dionysiac Artists, written after 146 BCE: RDGE 44, ll. 1-9=RGE 37]. We find also minor privileges which the Romans sometimes granted to the Greeks, such as the right of a truce in the course of the festivals and the right to use the purple stripe on their clothing. See the letter of Marcus Antonius to the Koinon of the Greeks from Asia concerning the Association of Worldwide Wreath-Wearing Victors in the Sacred Games (42-41 or 33-32 BCE): “Marcus Antonius imperator... to the Koinon of the Greeks from Asia, greetings... in regard to the former privileges of the Association... that they may remain intact, and in regard to the rest of what is asked of me in the way of honors and privileges, (namely)... during the course of the festivals a truce, and inviolability, and (the right of the) purple stripe... I did consent...”. Sherk explains that this is a reference to the right to wear purple decorations along with the golden ornaments which certain distinguished persons in Greek cities and organizations were permitted to add to their clothing on formal occasions6. In addition to these kinds of grants, honorary privileges are also mentioned: the names of the beneficiaries are to be entered on the official list of amici populi Romani; they are permitted to set up bronze tablets attesting to their new status; they may offer sacrifices in the Capitol; they are to receive the usual gifts, housing, and allowances for the period of their stay in Rome; in the future, they may send envoys to the Senate on matters of personal interest, or they may come themselve7. We find, therefore, that there were three kinds of privileges granted by the Romans: fiscal, honorary, and juridicial privileges. Similar conclusions can be reached when we consult the chapter on “Requests and beneficia” in Millar's work (even though it deals with a later historical period): the privileges usually granted by the Romans to provincial cities were gifts of various kinds (money, columns of Synadan marble for an anointing room, gifts of corn) and financial privileges, such as the permission to raise certain internal revenues, the remission of fiscal debts of whatever kind, immunity from taxes, exemption from indirect taxes, reduction from direct tribute8. Which of the Jewish rights fit the category of privileges? Certainly, we can mention the practice, in Rome, of having the distributions of corn kept for the next day, when they happened to be distributed on Saturdays: “At the monthly distributions in Rome, when all the people in turn receive

6. RDGE 57 = RGE 85: ll. 1-19; see Sherk, RGE, p. 106. 7. See Sherk, RDGE, pp. 130-1. 8. F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, (31 BC- AD 337) London 1977, pp. 420- 434. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 27 money or food, he (Augustus) never deprived the Jews of this bounty, but if the distribution happened to be made on the Sabbath when no one is permitted to receive or give anything or to transact any part of the business of ordinary life, particularly of a lucrative kind, he ordered the dispensers to reserve for the Jews till the morrow the charity which fell to all” [Philo, Legatio ad Caium, 158]. Another right which can be defined as a privilege was a special right enjoyed by the Jews at Antioch on the Orontes: “Seleu- cus I Nicator decided that those Jews who were unwilling to use foreign oil should receive a fixed sum of money from the gymnasiarchs to pay for their own kind of oil; and, when the people of Antioch proposed to revoke this privilege, Mucianus, who was then governor of Syria, maintained it” [Ant. XII, 120]. Kasher explains that, since the production and supply of oil was an imperial monopoly, the central government issued regulations regarding the distribution of oil in order to facilitate supervision9. The exemption from military service is a more complicated case. Ex- emption from military service is one of the rights which unquestionably fits the category of privilegia. Josephus tells us that it was granted in Judaea by Caesar [Ant. XIV, 204], and at Ephesus in 49 BCE to Jews who were Roman citizens [Ant. XIV, 228-9; 234; 237-240], and again to all Ephesian Jews in 43 BCE [Ant. XIV, 225-7] the reason given by Josephus is the observance of the Sabbath [“they may not bear arms or march on the days of the Sabbath”] and the difficulty to obtain “the native foods to which they are accustomed” [Ant. XIV, 225-7; in Ant. XIV, 240, all this is defined by the Roman consul as “religious scruples”]. This exemption is, for certain, to be considered a privilegium. The problem is to define its extension in time and space. Augustus does not mention military exemption in his general confirmation of Jewish rights [Ant. XVI, 160], and the same Josephus seems to imply that the Jews did participate in the Roman army when he writes: “When the rations were distributed free of charge, if the food provided was forbidden to Jews, the Roman army would pay Jewish soldiers the value of their rations”. In another place, too, Josephus gives the same testimony about the existence of Jewish soldiers, when he writes that Dolabella excused Jewish soldiers from having to march on the Sabbath [Ant. XIV, 225-227]10.

9. A. Kasher, “The Rights of the Jews of Antioch on the Orontes”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 49, 1982, p. 77 and pp. 78-79 about the prohibition of using foreign oil during the Second Temple time. 10. See Rabello. op. cit. vol. II 1988 in n. (3), note 37, pp. 678-9. The sources dealing with Jewish presence in the Roman army, from the first to the fourth centuries CE, are examined by S. Applebaum, “Jews and Service in the Roman Army”, Seventh Congress of Roman 28 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD?

It is possible therefore to conclude that exemption from military service to Ephesian Jews was indeed a privilegium, though limited in time and space. Other privileges were granted by Caesar to Hyrcanus II, his children, and to the envoys sent by him. One is related to the admission to the Senate chamber: “when they request permission of the Dictator or Master of the horse to enter the Senate chamber, they shall admit them and shall give them an answer within ten days at the latest from the time when a decree is passed” [Ant., XIV, 210]. The other is the right “to sit with the members of the senatorial order as spectators of the contests of gladiators and wild beasts” [Ant. XIV, 210]. It would be interesting to know whether this right was ever exercised. We know that these kinds of games were unusual, and even contrary to the Jewish law. Herod established contests in music and athletic exercises, and prepared a great number of gladiators and wild beasts for this purpose [Ant. XVI, 137], and Josephus stresses that these games were opposite to the Jewish notions: “Herod went still further in departing from the native customs, and through foreign practices he gradually corrupted the ancient way of life, which had hitherto been inviolable. ... For in the first place he established athletic contests... foreign to Jewish custom, for... the exhibition of such spectacles has not been traditional [with the Jews]. ... For the natives it meant an open break with the customs held in honour by them. ... It seemed a further impiety to change their established ways for foreign practices” [Ant. XV, 267-275]. Exercised or not, from the Roman point of view it was a privilege. Most other Jewish rights mentioned by Josephus pertain to the religious sphere; such are for example the right to celebrate the Sabbath [Ant. XIV, 258 and Ant. XIV, 263-264]; the corollary right not to appear in court on Sabbath or in the day of preparation before it, after the ninth hour [Ant. XVI, 163]; the right to celebrate the sacred rites and accustomed feasts [Ant. XIV, 258]; the right to observe the sabbatical year in Judaea [Ant. XIV, 202; 206]; the right to build synagogues where they wanted to do so [Ant. XIV, 258, 260]; the right to administer their own justice [Ant. XIV, 235; 260-1]; the right to import into the city kosher food [Ant. XIV, 261].

Frontier Studies, (ed. M. Gichon), Tel Aviv 1971, pp. 181-184. From this study it emerges that we find fewer Jews serving in the Roman than in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies. Applebaum identifies the reasons underlying this fact with Jewish reluctance, from one side, due to the cult of military standards (see on this subject K.M.T. Atkinson, “The Historical Setting of the Habakkuk Commentary”, J.Sem.St., IV, 1959, pp. 246-255), and Roman reluctance, from the other side, to conscript Jews, because of the rebellious spirit that Jews often demonstrated, both in Judea and in the Diaspora. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 29

Now it is well known that in the religious sphere freedom was usually granted by the Romans to all population groups to live according to their customs. These rights cannot therefore be regarded as privileges. Three particular cases will be examined now, which are usually regarded as privileges: the right to send money to the Temple of Jerusalem, the right of assembly, and the so called exemption from imperial cult.

The right to send money to the Temple of Jerusalem It is mentioned by Josephus in a general way in Ant. XVI, 28, 60 and 163 and in Bell. VI, 335. The same right is mentioned also for specific places: Asia, Augustus' time: Ant. XVI, 166; Ephesus, Agusutus' time: Ant. XVI, 168 and Ant. XVI, 172; Cyrene: Ant. XVI, 169-170, Augustus' time; Sardis: Ant. XVI, 171, Augustus' time. It can be regarded as a privilege only if we can prove that it was an exception to common rules. But, generally speaking, the export of money was not prohibited in the Roman world: the permission given to the Jews to export their monies did not constitute therefore a deviation from common Roman rules. Only in the sixties BCE, a series of decrees issued in Rome explicitly prohibited the export of gold and silver from Rome. If we can demonstrate that the Jews enjoyed exemption, we can speak, at least for these years, of the existence of a privilege. The statement that the Jews were exempted from these bans often appears in contemporary research: the proof is seen in the fact that the Jews did continue to send their sacred monies to Jerusalem. Flaccus' confiscation of the sacred money in four cities of Asia Minor (Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyttium and Pergamum) in 62 BCE constituted, therefore, an illegal interference in Jewish customs. This picture appears, without notable differences, in most works dealing with the subject: discussions which relate this passage to the history of Rome's provincial administration display a general assumption of the guilt of Flaccus in this episode. Indeed, his treatment of the Asian Jews is to be found listed among notable in- dictments of the Republican provincial regime, and has been represented as a wholly unjustifiable interference with Jewish customs11.

11. See the works of Chapot, Jolliffe, Vogelstein, Rostovtzeff, Magie and specialized Jewish studies cited by A.J. Marshall, “Flaccus and the Jews of Asia (Cicero, Pro Flacco, 28, 67-69)”, Phoenix, 29, 1975, note 13 p. 142 and p. 143. As for Marshall's judgement, see especially note 16 p. 142: this scholar maintains that Macrobius' passage about Flaccus' guilt, which has been often cited as if conclusively, established the guilt of Flaccus is not more than merely an opinion put into the mouth of Symmachus, one of the characters of the Saturnalia. Even though the judgement of Symmachus may reflect a communis opinio of the day, it cannot in itself be taken as proving anything. 30 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD?

Recently, however, an article by Marshall raises some doubt about this subject. The point at issue, this scholar maintains — and he is right — is not so much the confiscation of the gold, as the edictal ban which led up to it: Cicero clearly explains that Flaccus first issued his edictal ban and only proceeded to the confiscation of the tribute-money because the Asian Jews had been caught in an attempt to send it in deliberate defiance of that edict. In other words, the Jews were caught in an attempt to defy Roman law. What has to be dealt with, therefore, is the legality of Flaccus' ban12. It is difficult to deal with this subject, because if, on one hand, we find it in line with the similar bans prohibiting the export of gold issued in Rome in the same period13, on the other, it appears that in Rome the Jews, in spite of the bans, were not prevented from sending their tribute to Jerusalem. It is not only an argumentum e silentio based on the unanimous silence of Jewish and non-Jewish sources on the subject: it is a fact that, had the Jews in Rome itself been prevented from sending their tribute to the Temple of Jerusalem, Flaccus' behavior would have been completely legal, and Asian Jews would have been prevented from presenting their accusations during the process. Moreover, if Roman Jews, too, had been prevented from sending their half-shekel to the Temple, Cicero would hardly have refrained from mentioning it, since this fact would have unquestionably supported Flaccus' deeds. Does this automatically mean that the Jews had a legal authorization, namely, a legal exemption from the bans issued in Rome against the export of gold? Hardly. Juster assumes that the continuation of the sending of the Temple-tribute shows by itself that Jews throughout the Roman world must have been granted an exemption on their terms: which means that a formal exemption must have existed14. It is a fact, however, as Marshall rightly points out, that no source mentions the exemption of the Jews from these bans, not even Josephus and Philo, who had an interest in doing it. The solution to the problem perhaps lies in Cicero's testimony, which seems to mean that the sending of the tribute-money was not a legal right, but only a national custom which was permitted to exist de facto: the verb used is soleret [Pro Flacco, 28, 671, which would not imply the existence of any legal right and would give us no reason to suppose that the practice rested on any firmer basis than the customary tolerance of the Roman authorities.

12. Marshall, art. cit. [in n. 11], pp. 139-154. 13. Marshall, art. cit. [in n. 11], p. 145. 14. Juster, op. cit. [in n. 3], I, p. 380. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 31

Marshall suggests three possible explanations of what happened during those years: 1) the successive decrees may have been to some degree in- effectual, and so could be simply evaded by the Jews of the diaspora; 2) the decrees themselves may have been intended to have a limited application in respect of time, area, or type of organization covered, and so were not enforced as universal bans without exceptions; 3) or, most probable, the decrees may have constituted admonitions rather than general bans, addressed in broad terms to successive governors and so dependent for their implementation on the interpretation and discretion of those officials. Mar- shall concludes that in all three cases the Jews did not need an explicit exemption: the Senate would have been concerned to stop the commercial export of gold, and previous governors had probably exempted religious contributions from its regulations in accordance with a customary interpretation. Possibly the Jews themselves simply assumed that they had an agreed exemption, by virtue of their generally accepted claim to the right of living under their ancestral law. Probably, the export of these offerings con- tinued de facto through the tolerance or indifference of the Roman officials, while it could at any time be stopped if some special reason were seen for enforcing the Senatus Consulta in this particular case15. From the Jewish point of view, this tolerance or indifference could be regarded as a right, while from the Roman point of view it could only be a practically recognized situation. If the Jews' right to send their tribute to the Temple of Jerusalem was recognized only de facto in this period, this means that an explicit exemption from the bans issued in Rome probably did not exist. If an exemption did not exist, we cannot speak of the existence of a legal privilegium. We must therefore conclude that, if the sending of the Jewish monies was not a privilegium in the sixties BCE, when the export of gold was prohibited, it was not a privilegium in the following years, when the prohibition no longer existed.

The right of assembly Several Senatus Consulta repeatedly negated this right to the collegia [not otherwise specified] in Rome. The first time was in 64 BCE. What happened to the Jews? Is it reasonable to assume that a formal exemption

15. If so, Flaccus' ban would have been legal: Marshall, art. cit. [in n. 11], p. 146. Mar- shall's discussion about the reasons underlying the issue of Flaccus' ban, in connection with the economic and political conditions of the province in those years and of Flaccus' particular interest in the Jewish moneys, which happened that year to be conspicuous, is excellent, and has to be seen. 32 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? was granted to them? Sources are silent. Marshall, far from thinking about the existence of a privilege, suggests the opposite; namely, that the Jews quite possibly lost all their rights during those years, since there is no evidence that Jewish organizations were exempted from this decree, and that the same happened to the Jews in the provinces16. This suggestion, however, raises a number of difficulties. First of all, it has not yet been established if Jewish communities outside of Rome could have been named and considered as collegia; and then, as Marshall recognizes17, it is not even clear whether the decree of 64 BCE applied to collegia outside Rome. From what happened in later years, we know that the decisions of the Roman government concerning Roman Jewish communities did not automatically apply to Diaspora communities: a special, separate decision was needed in this case [Ant. XIV, 215]18. Moreover, it can be questioned whether the ban against the collegia of 64 BCE applied to the Jews even in Rome. The edict had a clear political purpose connected with the political struggles which were agitating Rome at that time, and it was aimed against a certain kind of collegia. During this period, we see the phenomenon of the transformation of the traditional collegia into groups for political agitation, composed mainly of freedmen, the plebs, and also slaves, which were used by political leaders — the most famous was P. Clodius Pulcher — as instruments of pressure for the election campaigns. The professional collegia gathered together once a year on the occasion of a popular festival, the ludi Compitalici, which they had the task of organizing. This was a perfect occasion to gather, and quickly, the elements of the poor social strata in all the neighborhoods of Rome. The Compitalia became an ideal instrument to gain control of the streets, and therefore were feared by the Roman government. That the prohibition against the collegia was motivated by political internal struggles in Rome, and with the purpose of suppressing the Compitalia, can be clearly understood from Asconius: “ ...senatus con- sulto collegia sublata sunt quae adversus rem publicam videbantur esse constituta. Solebant autem magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sicut magistri vicorum faciebant Compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis dis- cussi sunt” [Asconius, In Pis., ed. Clark, p. 7; and the same conclusions can be reached if we consider what happened some years later. In 61 BCE, the collegia tried, in violation of the Senatus Consultum, to celebrate the Com- pitalia, but the consul designatus, Q. Metellus Celer, succeeded in preventing

16. Marshall, art. cit. [in n. 11], pp. 149-150. 17. Art. cit. [in n. 11], p. 150. 18. See ultra, p. 34. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 33 them. In 58 BCE, the lex Clodia de collegiis restituendis nouisque in- stituendis restored the collegia, but two years later a Senatus Consultum established ut sodalitates decuriatique discederent lexque de iis ferretur, ut qui non discedissent ea poena quae est de ui tenerentur. That the term sodalitates is to be understood here as collegium is doubtful: it rather seems that political clubs are meant. In 55 BCE, a lex Licinia de sodaliciis was enacted, against all forms of political “degeneration” related to associations. This law made it a formal crime to employ organized groups of men for the purpose of corrupting or intimidating voters19. It seems that religious associations were in no way connected with the political struggles of Rome in these years; particularly, it seems that Jews had nothing to do with the festival of the Compitalia, which included — among theatrical representations and scenes of hand-to-hand struggle and boxing — also a sacrifice. It is probably not chance that Jews are never mentioned by the sources in this connection. Were the Jews explicitly exempted by the ban of 64 BCE? Some exceptions from the ban did exist. In spite of its general character, the decree could not in reality have been applied thoroughly. Asconius writes that “collegia et S.C. et pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque certa quae utilitas civitatis desiderasset, sicut fabrorum fictorumque” [Asconius, In Corn. ed. Clark p. 75]. But the professions which were useful and important, even vital, to Rome were surely more numerous than the two cases mentioned. It is possible therefore to think that the ban could have been applied only in those cases in which the collegia were considered dangerous to Roman political life20. It is doubtful that a special exemption was made for the Jews, who at the time certainly did not constitute a large community in Rome. We have to remember that the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompeius, with the subsequent arrival in Rome of numerous prisoners and exiles from Judea, would take place only a year later, in 63 BCE. A tiny community probably did not attract the attention of the government, and this is the impression we get from contemporary sources. Possibly the Jews themselves

19. On the laws voted in these years, and in general on the political scene at Rome see E.S. Gruen, “P. Clodius Pulcher, Instrument or Independent Agent”, Phoenix 20, 1966, pp. 120-130; A.W. Lintott, “P. Clodius Pulcher, Felix Catilina?”, Greece and Rome 14, 1967, pp. 157-169; J.M. Flambard, “Clodius, les collèges, la plèbe et les esclaves. Recherches sur la politique populaire au milieu du Ier siècle”, Mel. Ec.Fr.Rome 89, 1, 1977, pp. 115-153; W.M.F. Rundell, “Cicero and Clodius: The Question of Credibility”, Historia 28,3, 1979, pp. 301-328; D. Mulroy, “The Early Career of P. Clodius Pulcher: a Re-examination of the Charges of Mutiny and Sacrilege”, TAPA, 118, 1988, pp. 155-178. 20. Also E.S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, Berkeley 1974, p. 228 understands that the Senatus Consultum of 64 BCE ordered the disbanding of ‘several’ collegia only: not all were removed by that particular action. 34 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? simply assumed that they had an agreed exemption, by virtue of their generally accepted claim to the right of living according to their ancestral law. We can reasonably suppose that de facto nothing changed in the life of Roman Jews after 64 BCE. An explicit exemption, though, probably did not exist: otherwise, Josephus and Philo would have had all the interest to mention it. Therefore, in this case also, we cannot assume the existence of a legal privilegium. There is no doubt that, even during the first century CE, colleges and associations were in existence in Rome and elsewhere which had been formed without authorization. The government ignored their existence; but if at any time they appeared involved in disorders and public riots, they were immediately suppressed. It seems that their number was very large, and that in general the Roman police were very tolerant toward them21. The case of the right of assembly, recognized, this time legally, in Caesar's time, was different. Josephus explicitly states that, when a decree was passed in Rome prohibiting most collegia — cuncta collegia, praeter antiquitus constituta distraxit [Suetonius, Divus Julius, 42], an exemption was made for the Jews: “Gaius Caesar... by edict forbade religious societies (thia- sous) to assemble in the cities, but these people alone he did not forbid to do so...”. The reason was clear: the collegia exempted were those which did not come under the head of coetus factiosorum hominum, and the Jews had nothing to do with internal Roman political struggles. This decision did not apply automatically to Diaspora communities: Josephus goes on to report a separate decision about the Jewish people of Paros: “Similarly do I (Julius Gaius, Praetor, Consul of the Romans) forbid other religious societies but permit these people alone to assemble and feast”. [Ant. XIV, 215]. In this case, we can speak of a privilegium. The same is true for the time of Augustus. A law against collegia promulgated or revived by Augustus abolished all collegia without discrimination, but at the same time authorized the organization of the old associations already excepted by Caesar [“Pluri- mae factiones titulo collegii novi ad nulllius non facinoris societatem coibant, igitur collegia praeter antiqua et legitima dissolvit”: Suetonius, Augustus, 32] provided they received the necessary permit from the Senate. This permit was to be granted only to those that were not likely to disturb the peace of the state, but would definitely serve the public interest22.

21. See G. La Piana, “Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Centuries of the Empire”, HTR 20, 4, 1927, p. 245. 22. See La Piana, art. cit. in n. 21, p. 237. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 35

Exemption from the imperial cult? This is an extremely important topic. The imperial cult in the Roman world seems to have fulfilled two basic functions: first, it provided a system of com- munication of loyalty between the cities or provinces and the central power; and second, it offered a status within the cult to prominent members of the local elite, emphasizing their special association with imperial authority23. As long as the Temple stood, the Jews sacrificed two lambs and a bull twice daily for the well-being of the emperor and of the Roman people: “(Our legislator) ... did not forbid the payment of homage of another sort, secondary to that paid to God, to worthy men; such honours we do confer upon the emperors and the people of Rome. For them we offer perpetual sacrifices...". [C.Ap., II, 77; see also C.Ap. II, 197; Bell., II, 197, and Philo, Leg. 157, 232, 317]. On special occasions hecatombs were also offered: “We did sacrifice hecatombs too, and we did not just pour the blood upon the altar and then take the flesh home to feast and regale ourselves with it as some do, but we gave the victims to the sacred fire to be entirely consumed, and we have done this not once but thrice already, the first time at your (Gaius) accession to the sovereignty, the second when you escaped the severe sickness which all the habitable world suffered with you, the third as a prayer of hope for victory in Germany” [Philo, Leg. 356]. Josephus tells us that the suspension of the sacrifice for the well-being of the emperor was the first tangible sign of the incipient rebellion against Roman rule in 66 CE: “Eleazar, son of Ananias the high-priest, a very daring youth, then holding the position of captain, persuaded those who officiated in the Temple services to accept no gift or sacrifice from a foreigner. This action laid the foundation of the war with the Romans; for the sacrifices offered on behalf of that nation and the emperor were in consequence rejected” [Bell. II, 409-410]24. It seems that the Romans themselves bore the expenses of this sacrifice. The difference between Philo [Leg. 157 and 317], who holds that the Romans paid for it, and Josephus, who maintains that the Jews bore the expense [C.Ap., II, 77] can be viewed as a verbal disagreement only. Philo and Josephus may simply be viewing the matter from different angles, if the cost of the sacrifice was actually defrayed out of the provincial taxes25.

23. J. Ferguson, “Ruler-worship”, in: The Roman World, II, ed. J. Wacher, London 1987, p. 778. See also S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power, Cambridge 1984, pp. 239-248 on the imperial cult and political power. 24. See C. Roth, “The Debate on the Loyal Sacrifices, AD 66”, H Th R 53, 1960, pp. 93-97. 25. See Smallwood, op. cit. in n. 3, p. 148 and G. Vermes, F. Miller, M. Black, “Gentile Participation in Worship at Jerusalem” in: E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, II, Edinburgh 1979, p. 312. 36 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD?

It is possible that the Romans did not like the Jews' special way of hon- ouring the emperor very much. The absence of statues in honour of the emperor, for example, was difficult for them to understand. Tacitus [Histo- riae, V, 5, 4] observes: “[The Jews] regard as impious those who make from perishable materials representations of god's in man's image; that supreme and eternal being is to them incapable of representation and without end. Therefore they set up no statues in their cities, still less in their temples; this flattery is not paid their kings, nor this honour given to the Caesars”. See also Apion's remarks, as they appear in Josephus: “Apion has... attempted to denounce us on the ground that we do not erect statues of the emperors. ... He should rather have admired the magnanimity and moderation of the Romans in not requiring their subjects to violate their ancestral laws, and being content to accept such honours as the religious and legal obligations of the donors permit them to pay” [C.Ap., II, 73]. Yet we have no indication that Roman dislike found practical expression in their policy. What happened at the time of emperor Caligula26 in Jerusalem and in Alexandria27 is surely to be seen as exceptional. It seems that we can believe Josephus when he writes [C.Ap. II, 6]: “The Romans... do not compel those who are subject to them to transgress the laws of their own countries, but receive the honours due to them as it is pious and lawful for those who offer them to pay them”28. Can all this be understood as an “exemption” from the imperial cult? Juster thinks that we cannot speak of an exemption, but of toleration on the part of the Romans of “special” forms of the imperial cult — forms which he calls sui generis. The same evaluation appears in Rabello's works29. There are, however, also contemporary researchers who use the word “exemption”. Smallwood maintains that exemption from participation in the imperial cult for the Jews was a privilege so obvious that it is never specified: “it followed automatically on the grant of religious freedom and formed an integral part of it, since any attempt to force emperor-worship on

26. See Juster, op. cit. [in n. 3], p. 345. 27. For events in Jerusalem, see the article by G. Firpo (“Il tentativo di Caligola di pro- fanare il tempio di Gerusalemme”, written in 1984) and the other works cited by Rabello, op. cit. II 1988 [in n. 3], note 30-31, p. 677. For events in Alexandria see Philo, In Fl., 43-49 and Leg. 349-67 spec. 357. 28. On Josephus' personal ideas about imperial cult, see R. Trummer, “Josephus Flavius und der Kaiser Kult in Heiligen Land”, Megor Hayym Festschrift für Georg Molin zu Seinem 75, Geburtstag (Seybold I. ed.), Graz 1983, pp. 387-408. 29. Juster, op. cit. [in n. 3], p. 340; Rabello, art. cit. 1976 [in n. 3], p. 225; by the same author, art. cit. 1980 [in n. 3], pp. 703-704; see also Rabello, op. cit. II, 1988 [in n. 3], p. 677. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 37 a protected monotheistic cult would have been a contradiction in terms”30. The same idea is implied by Balsdon and by Moehring; recently, Gaudemet has claimed that the refusal to participate in the imperial cult “plus qu'un sacrilège, c'était un crime de lèse-majesté”31. Was an “exemption” really necessary for the Jews? This question can be answered only after we establish what was normative and obligatory in the imperial cult and what was not. On this subject, an article by Bickermann appeared in 1973 offering new and interesting insights. It appears that the imperial cult was not something monolitic, as it has often been maintained in the past, but allowed for notable differences in different places. Only separate and independent cults existed, spread all over the Roman Empire. “Each community was free to organize the worship at its own convenience. Nero was “New Apollo” in Athens and “Asclepius Caesar” at Cos. There was Hadrian “Zeus of boundaries”, “Hadrian, the Olympian Zeus”, and so on. The goddess Roma was worshipped together with the emperors in Hispania Tarraconensis, but not in Baetica and Lusitania. The oath of Paphos coupled “Augustus god Caesar and the everlasting Rome”. In another Cyprus town “the immortality of the Augusti” had its priest. In Asia Minor, mysteries were celebrated in the provincial ruler-cult”32. Thus, it appears that each city, each province, each group worshipped this or that sovereign according to its own discretion and ritual. In practice, virtually every emperor was worshipped everywhere, but this coincidence does not negate the fundamental diversity of cults33. Bickermann paradoxically maintains that a universal, general world-wide imperial cult simply did not exist34.

30. Smallwood, op. cit. [in n. 3], p. 137. 31. J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, Chapel Hill 1979, p. 236: “Why, when the whole of the rest of the world accepted, and indeed in its attendant celebrations enjoyed, the imperial cult, should the Jews alone be allowed to indulge their curious idiosyncrasy to the extent of not even paying lip-service to the cult?”; also Moehring, op. cit. [in n. 3], p. 901, writes: “One of the most conspicuous examples of the extraordinary position of the Jews was their exemption from participation in the cult of the Roman emperor”. J. Gaudemet, “La condition juridique des Juifs dans les trois premiers siècles de l'Empire”, Augustinianum, 28, 1988, p. 354. 32. H.W. Pleket, “An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries”, HThR 58, 1965, pp. 331-347. 33. The differences which existed in the imperial cults in the oriental, central and occidental provinces deserve further investigation: see, for example, M. Calderone, “Discussion” in op. cit. [in n. 34], p. 32. The same idea is found in D. Fishwick, “The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire”, ANRW II, 16, 2, 1978, p. 1203. 34. “Consecratio” in: Le Culte des Souverains dans l'Empire Romain — Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique, XIX, (ed. W. den Boer), Genève 1973, pp. 3-25; see especially notes 1- 3, p. 9. See also the review of A. North, JRS 66, 1976, pp. 240-1. 38 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD?

If the Romans accepted this impressive variety of cults, it follows that Jewish ways, in respect to ruler-worship, were by no means exceptional, because sacrifices “on behalf” of the emperor existed in the Roman world, side-by-side with the well-known sacrifices “to” the emperor. Jews were not the only people who sacrificed “on behalf” of the emperor. We have many examples of sacrifices “for” the emperor, coming from Asia Minor, Sparta, the islands, Egypt, and also from western provinces. Thus a contemporary could imagine that “the whole world sacrifices and prays on behalf of the emperor's eternal duration and unconquered rule” [IGR IV 1398, from Smyrna, 124 CE], while an inscription from Gytheum near Sparta speaks of a procession which made its way from the temple of Asclepius and Hygeia, the gods of health, to the imperial shrine. A bull was sacrificed there, but this was not, as one might have espected, to the emperor, but “on behalf of the safety of the rulers and gods and the eternal duration of their rule”. According to Price, the temple of Asclepius and Hygeia may have been chosen as the starting point of the procession to symbolize the fact that the purpose of the festival was to secure the health and long rule of the emperors. It is clear that no sacrifice was actually offered to the emperors at this festival in spite of the divine framework in which it was set35. At Sardis, too, when Agustus' oldest son donned the toga, the city “on the occasion of such great good fortune has decided that the day which completed his transition from boy to man shall be a holy day... (on which) sacrifices shall be performed by the strategoi of the year to the gods, and prayers offered through the sacred heralds for his (i.e. Gaius') safety” [RRAM I 481 = RGE 104, ll. 10-13, 5 BCE). Sacrifices “for” and not “to” the emperor appear not only in the Greek, but also in the Egyptian world. Price goes as far as to argue that the emphasis was in general on sacrifices on behalf of the emperor, and not “to” the emperor36. He sees confirmation in the evidence relative to the priests of the emperor: the evidence is scanty, but when their ritual functions are revealed, these are rather surprising. In only one instance (from Cos) is a sacrifice to the emperor known to have been performed by an imperial priest. In all the other cases their sacrifices were on behalf of the emperor. Price concludes that the attestation of these sacrifices “on behalf of” the emperor demonstrates that these were considered to be their most important duties and may have been their only ones. A high priest of the emperors at

35. SEG XI 923, dated 15 CE. See Price, op. cit. [in n. 23], p. 211 and bibliography in note 18, p. 210. 36. See the evidence collected by Price, op. cit. [in n. 23], note 93, p. 227 and pp. 210-1. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 39

Aphrodisias “sacrificed to the ancestral gods, offering prayers himself on behalf of the health, safety and eternal duration of their rule; and in the same city a woman, who held, among other offices, a priesthood of the emperors, “sacrificed throughout all the years on behalf of the health of the emperors”37. An analysis of the standard imperial celebrations would also indicate the predominance of sacrifices on behalf of the emperor; the ritual seems to have been cautious with the sacrifices being offered in thanksgiving to the gods rather than to the emperor. Much the same would be true of the arrival of the emperor in a provincial city: in no case is it known that sacrifices were made to the emperor upon his arrival. Language sometimes equated the emperor to a god, but ritual held back38. Josephus, too, mentions sacrifices on behalf of the emperor: when Vespasian was elected emperor, he writes, every city in the empire thusias uper autou epetelei [Bell., IV, 618]. The same seems to be true also for what concerns western provinces: the imperial cult constituted an act of homage more than an act of worship. “Genuine piety, expressed in the form of ex votos, seems hardly to be attested in connection with the ruler cult, for in time of sickness or peril one turned not to the emperor but to the gods... . Often the help of the gods was also requested for the emperor himself: by subjoining the attribute Augustus one might invoke the protection of some god for the reigning emperor”39. Moreover, we have to remember that in the historical period under consideration — namely, the first century CE — the habit of attributing divine honors to the emperor was not yet established in the western world. Refusals of divine honors on the part of the Romans is attested both for the end of the Republican period [Cic., ad Att. V, 21, 7: nullos honores mihi nisi verboum decerni sino; statuas, fana, tethrippa prohibeo... . See also Ad. Qu. fr. I, I, 26] and for the first half of the first century CE by Augustus, by Tiberius40 and by Claudius, too, who refused the honors which the Alexandrians wanted to give him: “... but the establishment of a high-priest and temples of myself I decline, not wishing to be offensive to my contemporaries and in the belief that temples and the like have been set apart in all ages for the gods alone” [CPJ II, 153, col. III, ll. 48-51].

37. See Price, op. cit. [in n. 23], notes 21 and 22, p. 211. Also the existence of an official called the prothytes (the word is derived from pro ‘for/before’ and thytes ‘sacrificer’) is explained by Price (p. 212) by the importance of sacrifices on behalf of the emperor. On imperial priests in Asia Minor, see Price, op. cit. [in n. 23], map IV, p. XXIV. 38. Price, op. cit. [in n. 23], pp. 212-213. 39. Fishwick, art. cit. [in n. 33], pp. 1251-2. 40. See M.P. Charlesworth, “The Refusal of Divine Honours, an Augustan Formula” Pap. of the Brit.Sch. at Rome, 15, 1939, pp. 1-10; L. Ross Taylor, “Tiberius' Refusals of Divine Honors”, TAPA 60, 1929, pp. 87-101. 40 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD?

Nero, too, in the letter he wrote to the polis Ptolemais Euergetis in Egypt in 55 CE, refused divine honors; and the reason adduced repeats the known formula: dia tois theois monois tauten ten timen up'anthropon apone- mesthai (col. I, ll. 3-6)41. The Jewish way to sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem, therefore, was hardly an exception in the Roman world. What about Jewish participation in ruler-worship outside Jerusalem? In the Diaspora, and in Judea outside Jerusalem, the Jews showed their devotion to the emperors, offering prayers to the Almighty in favor of the emperor and introducing the formula pro salute Augusti in the inscriptions which appeared in their synagogues. Inscriptions Deo Aeterno pro salute Augusti were found in the synagogues in Judea [CIJ II, 972, from Kasyoun, 197 CE], in Italy at Ostia, and in Hungary at Intercisa42. It seems that the Jews considered, and wanted their rulers to consider, these formulas which they put in their synagogues as a form of devotion and loyalty to the emperor. In this sense we can understand Philo [In Fl., 48-49]: “The Jews losing their meeting-houses were losing also what they would have valued as worth dying many thousands of deaths; namely, their means of showing reverence to their benefactors, since they no longer had the sacred buildings where they would set forth their thankfulness. Everywhere in the habitable world the religious veneration of the Jews for the Augustan house has its basis, as all may see, in the meeting-houses, and if we have these destroyed, no place, no method is left to us for paying this homage”. In Leg. 133, Philo specifies the honors paid to the emperors in the synagogues: shields, gilded crowns, slabs, and inscriptions. The Jewish imperial cult in the Temple, as we have seen, was by no means something particular or exceptional, and the same is true for these expressions of loyalty in the Diaspora. To show one's devotion to the

41. The refusal is expressed by the verb paretesamen (col. I, 2-3), deprecor, which is the terminus technicus to refuse an offering in a nice and polite way: of course, the meaning of the refusal was formal and does not mean that the Romans really wanted to discourage the formation of the imperial cult, especially in the East. P.Med.inv. 70.01 verso = O. Mon- tevecchi, “Nerone a una polis e ai 6475”, Aegyptus 50, 1970, pp. 5-33. See this article for a thorough treatment of the sources testifying to the emperors' refusals of divine honors. 42. M. Floriani Squarciapino, I culti orientali a Ostia, Leiden 1962, p. 65; by the same author “The synagogue at Ostia”, Archaeology 16, 1963, pp. 195-203 and “Plotius Fortunatus Archisynagogus”, Rassegna Mensile di Israel, 36, 2, 1970, pp. 183-191; F. Zevi, “The Syna- gogue at Ostia”, Scritti in memoria di Enzo Sereni, Gerusalemme 1970, pp. 61-73 (Hebrew); F. Fülep, “New Remarks on the Question of the Jewish Synagogue at Intercisa”, A. Arch Hung 18, 1966, pp. 93-98. For a full bibliography on the dedication Deo Aeterno pro salute Augusti see Rabello, art. cit. 1980 [n. 3], note 171 p. 704. By the same author, art. cit. 1976 [n. 3], note 38, p. 225 and op. cit. II, 1988 [n. 3], note 31, p. 677. DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? 41 imperial house through these formulas was in no way something peculiarly Jewish: formulas pro salute Augusti appear also in inscriptions coming from the Greek and the Roman world. Many examples of an oath pro salute Augusti have been found in various parts of the Roman world: from Baetica, in Spain, where the formula pro salute honore victoria imp(eratoris) appears, from Samos, Aritium (Lusitania), Assos (Troad), and from Phazimon in Paphlagonia43. Jewish customs, therefore, did not constitute something exceptional, and it is clear that the Romans could easily accept them without the need of special consideration. Both in Jerusalem and in the Diaspora, the Jewish way of participating in the imperial cult belonged to a long tradition: Jewish sacrifices “for” the monarch were accepted since Persian times. Darius was the first to order that the sacrifice presented for the gentile authorities should be defrayed out of state funds, with the proviso that prayers should be said “for the life of the king and his sons”. The same probably also happened in Hellenistic times: Antiochus the Great provided large contributions from the same sources for the Temple cult, from which it has been inferred that sacrifice was offered regularly for the king. Aristeas has the High Priest Eleazar assure Ptolemy Philadelphus in his letter that he has offered sacrifices “for you and for your sister and for the children and the friends”, and a sacrifice for the king is definitely attested to during the period of the Maccabean movement44. In the Diaspora, too, the Jewish formulas of devotion belong to a long tradition, common to both Jews and non-Jews45. For the Jews, it had been a custom since Ptolemaic times: the first inscriptions come from Egypt, dating back to the third century BCE, and testify that the Jews

43. All of them belong to the beginning of the first century CE. Sources have been dis- cussed by J. Gonzales, “The First Oath pro salute Augusti Found in Baetica”, ZPE, 72, 1988, pp. 133-127: see especially p. 117 on scholars' various theories about the meaning (military and/or political) of these oaths and p. 126 for the relationship obtaining between Eastern and Roman tradition. An oath of fidelity is reported also from Judea in Herod's time, “when the whole Jewish people affirmed by an oath that it would be loyal to Caesar and to the king's government” [Ant., XVII, 42]. Interestingly, many Jews (over six thousand, according to Josephus) refused to take this oath; and when the king punished them with a fine, Pherora's wife paid the fine for them. An oath of fidelity was requested also by Herod, and “most of the people yielded to his demand out of complaisance or fear, but those who... objected to compulsion he got rid of by every possible means”. [Ant., XV, 368-370]. 44. Ezr. 6,9-10; Ant., XII,140; Ar., ed. Wendland, 45; I Macc. 7,33. See Vermes-Millar- Black, op. cit. [in n. 25], pp. 309-313, and especially note 76, p. 311, with a bibliography concerning the problems connected with the authenticity of the edict of Darius. 45. For the tradition of non-Jewish oaths pro salute Augusti in Hellenistic times see Gon- zales, art. cit. [in n. 43], p. 126. In pre-Roman age, the two traditions merged: the Hellenis- tic world adapted Roman oaths to its own tradition, and even incorporated fresh elements, particularly those related with the origin and development of the imperial cult. 42 DID THE JEWS ENJOY A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THE ROMAN WORLD? dedicated their synagogues to their Lord for the well-being of the king and of his wife46. As in many other instances, Romans inherited the Persian and Hellenistic traditions. It seems, therefore, that the way of participating in the imperial cult by the Jews was an accepted one, to be viewed against the background of the variety of forms of ruler-cult existing in the Roman empire, not an exemption — not even a toleration of a suis generis form of the imperial cult. In no way can we consider it a privilegium from the point of view of Roman law. The fact that no source, Jewish or non-Jewish, mentions Jewish exemption from the imperial cult is not fortuitous: they did not mention it simply because it did not exist. It is possible to conclude that the Jewish position in the Roman world cannot automatically be considered as a privileged one47. The matter surely warrants further investigation.

SUMMARY

Are we allowed to consider the position of the Jews a privileged one in the Roman world? In order to answer this question, the testimony which emerges from the Roman and Greek documents quoted by Josephus should be examined against the background of the epigraphical and papyrological material concerning the rights of other peoples living under the Roman government. Such a comparison suggests that not all the rights enjoyed by the Jews may be automatically considered privileges. The matter surely deserves further investigation. Here, three cases are examined in particular: the right to send money to the Temple of Jerusalem, the right of assembly, and the position of the Jews vis-a-vis the imperial cult.

46. W. Horbury-D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Greeco-Roman Egypt, Cambridge 1992, no. 22 from Schedia, south-east of Alexandria, 246-221 BCE. Other similar inscriptions are nos. 24, 25 and 9, from the second century BCE, nos. 27 and 28, from the second and the first century BCE; no. 13 was written in 37 BCE and no. 14 beers no date. 47. For the Jewish position in later times (the second century CE and particularly in Hadrian's time), see Rabello, art. cit. 1984 [in n. 3], pp. 1294-1297; by the same author op. cit., II, 1988 [in n. 3], pp. 673-5 and A. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit, Mich. Wayne State University, 1987.