Its Social and Legal Impact and a Possible Relation with Josephus' Antiquities

chapter 12 The Fiscus Judaicus: Its Social and Legal Impact and a Possible Relation with Josephus’ Antiquities Marius Heemstra Introduction In this paper I will focus on the Flavian period (69–96ce), which was a crucially important time for both Judaism and Christianity. The single most important event during these years was, of course, the taking of Jerusalem in the year 70 and the subsequent destruction of the Temple by the Romans. On the Jewish side the founding of a rabbinic school by Yohanan ben Zakkai in the city of Jamnia/Yavne stands out, with permission from the Romans still during the siege of Jerusalem (according to rabbinic legend), laying the foundations for Judaism as we know it today.1 On the Christian side one may observe that besides Paul’s uncontested letters, dated to the fifties of the first century, virtually all other documents that were included in the New Testament were written under the Flavian Emperors or very shortly after. But it must be stressed that almost all of these Christian writers were Jews and could still be regarded as such by both Romans and other Jews. In my opinion this situation changed drastically by the end of the Flavian period, which can be regarded as a period of rapid transition in this respect.2 A very important factor during these years was the fiscus judaicus, intro- duced by Vespasian as the collector of the Jewish tax that was instituted after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.3 Every Jew within the Roman Empire had to pay this annual tax of two denarii for the benefit of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill of Rome, which was the same amount that had been paid by Jewish males between the ages of twenty and fifty for the benefit of their own Temple before it was destroyed by the Romans. Some fifteen years after the introduction of the Jewish tax the actions of the fiscus judaicus 1 arn a4; LamR 1.5; bGit 56a–b. 2 My argument is broadly based on my dissertation (Groningen 2009): Rome’s Administration; a slightly revised version was published in 2010: Fiscus Judaicus. I will refer to the latter work in the footnotes. 3 Josephus, War 7:218, Cassius Dio, Hist rom 65.7.2. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278479_014 328 heemstra apparently led to a number of problems (under Domitian, between 85 and 96) that had to be solved by Nerva as soon as he became Emperor.4 So this fiscus seems to have played a major role, both at the beginning and at the end of the Flavian period, especially with regard to Jewish and Christian communities, as will be explained below. In this context special attention needs to be paid to Jewish Christians as seen from a Roman legal perspective in the last decades of the first century and the first decade of the second century.5 ‘Jew’ was a specific legal category in the Roman Empire, certainly after the year 70ce when, as explained above, Jews were supposed to pay the Jewish tax to the Roman fiscus judaicus and they thus constituted a separate and unique fiscal category. ‘Christian’ was another legal or rather ‘illegal’ category as early as the reign of Trajan, judging from Pliny’s letter to his Emperor (around 112ce).6 At that moment in time, being a Jew was acceptable to the Roman authorities and being a Christian was not. The scholar Ste. Croix labeled Jews in the Roman Empire as ‘licensed atheists’ and apparently Christians came to be considered as ‘unlicensed atheists’ at some point in time.7 In view of this development it is important to ask the question: in which of these two categories were Jewish Christians included? 4 For the details of the coin that was issued by Nerva in relation to the fiscus judaicus, see Heemstra, ‘Interpretation and Wider Context’. 5 When I use the term ‘Jewish Christian’ in this paper, I am referring to Jews who recognized Jesus as the Messiah and accepted non-Jews into their ‘Christian’ communities. They asked of them to give up their former gods, but did not fully convert them to Judaism by having them follow the Jewish laws concerning, e.g., food and circumcision. For this definition, also see Heemstra, Fiscus Judaicus, 4 n7. Furthermore, I will use ‘Jews’ and ‘Jewish’, despite the fact that some scholars prefer ‘Judaean’ and ‘Judaeans’ (see Mason, ‘Jews, Judaeans’ [and cf Mason in this volume, at n1]). In my paper it will become clear that I am of the opinion that the definition of ‘Jew’ changed from an ethnic to a more religious one around 96ce. Also see D. Schwartz, ‘Herodians and Ioudaioi’, and ‘“Judaean” or “Jew”’, who also prefers ‘Jew’. One of the observations by Schwartz is very relevant in the context of this paper: ‘The importance of distinguishing between Christianity and Ioudaioi served to point up the religious characteristics of the latter’ (‘Herodians and Ioudaioi’, 71). Also Runesson, ‘Inventing Christian Identity’, prefers ‘Jew’ and ‘Jewish’. And see in this volume Paula Fredriksen, n1. 6 Pliny, Ep 10.96; and Trajan’s answer, Ep 10.97. From Pliny’s letter one can also conclude that Christian communities were considered to be illegal associations by the Romans in these days. Harland, Dynamics of Identity, uses the combination ‘Judean gatherings and Christian communities’ very frequently in his book, but hardly pays attention to the fact that from a Roman perspective the former were considered to be legally acceptable associations and, at least during the second and third centuries, the latter were not. 7 Ste. Croix, ‘Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?’ 25..

Load more