The Provinces of the Roman Empire 27

The Provinces of the Roman Empire 27

and above all the circumstances here were so peculiar and so difficult,

that the immediate contact between the governing Romans and the

governed Jews--which certainly had been obstinately striven for by the

priestly party itself and ultimately obtained--redounded to the benefit

neither of the one nor of the other.

 

[Sidenote: Provincial organisation.]

 

Judaea thus became in the year A.D. 6 a Roman province of the second

rank,[168] and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom

of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth remained

a Roman province. Instead of the previous native princes holding

office for life and, under reservation of their being confirmed by

the Roman government, hereditary, came an official of the equestrian

order, nominated and liable to recall by the emperor. The port of

Caesarea rebuilt by Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at

once, the seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from

Roman garrison as a matter of course ceased, but, as throughout in

provinces of the second rank, the Roman military force consisted only

of a moderate number of cavalry and infantry divisions of the inferior

class; subsequently one ala and five cohorts--about 3000 men--were

stationed there. These troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier

government, at least in great part formed in the country itself,

mostly, however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks.[169] The province

did not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories

adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the four Syrian

legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman commandant, who took

up his abode in the royal castle, with a weak standing garrison; only

during the time of the Passover, when the whole land and countless

strangers flocked to the temple, a stronger division of soldiers was

stationed in a colonnade belonging to the temple. That on the erection

of the province the obligation of tribute towards Rome set in, follows

from the very circumstance that the costs of defending the land were

thereby transferred to the imperial government. After the latter had

suggested a reduction of the payments at the installation of Archelaus,

it is far from probable that on the annexation of the country it

contemplated an immediate raising of them; but doubtless, as in every

newly-acquired territory, steps were taken for a revision of the

previous land-register.[170]

 

[Sidenote: The native authorities.]

 

[Sidenote: The Synhedrion of Jerusalem.]

 

For the native authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban

communities were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as

the town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and the

other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of Archelaus,

were self-administering, under superintendence of the Roman authority.

The government also of the capital with the large territory belonging

to it was organised in a similar way. Already in the pre-Roman period

under the Seleucids there was formed, as we saw (p. 160), in Jerusalem

a council of the elders, the Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin.

The presidency in it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of

the land, if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for

the time. To the college belonged the former high priests and esteemed

experts in the law. This assembly, in which the aristocratic element

preponderated, acted as the supreme spiritual representative of the

whole body of Jews, and, so far as this was not to be separated from

it, also as the secular representative in particular of the community

of Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious

fiction transformed the Synhedrion of Jerusalem into a spiritual

institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded essentially to the

council of the Greek urban constitution, but certainly bore, as

respected its composition as well as its sphere of working, a more

spiritual character than belonged to the Greek representations of

the community. To this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now

nominated by the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain,

the Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in the

Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban authorities and the

common councils. With indifferent short-sightedness it allowed to the

transcendental Messianism of the Pharisees free course, and to the

by no means transcendental land-consistory--acting until the Messiah

should arrive--tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of manners,

and of law, where Roman interests were not directly affected thereby.

This applied in particular to the administration of justice. It is true

that, as far as Roman burgesses were concerned, ordinary jurisdiction

in civil as in criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman

tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But civil

jurisdiction over Jews remained even after that annexation chiefly with

the local authority. Criminal justice over them was exercised by the

latter probably in general concurrently with the Roman procurator; only

sentences of death could not be executed by it otherwise than after

confirmation by the imperial magistrate.

 

[Sidenote: The Roman provincial government.]

 

In the main those arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the

abolition of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this

request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements along with

it. Certainly it was the design of the government to avoid, as far

as possible, harshness and abruptness in carrying them out. Publius

Sulpicius Quirinius to whom, as governor of Syria the erection of the

new province was entrusted, was a magistrate of repute, and quite

familiar with the affairs of the East, and the several reports confirm

by what they say or by their silence the fact that the difficulties

of the state of things were known and taken into account. The local

coining of petty moneys, as formerly practised by the kings, now took

place in the name of the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish

abhorrence of images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the

coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple continued to be

forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under penalty of death.[171]

However averse was the attitude of Augustus personally towards the

Oriental worships (p. 172), he did not disdain here any more than in

Egypt to connect them in their home with the imperial government;

magnificent presents of Augustus, of Livia, and of other members of the

imperial house adorned the sanctuary of the Jews, and according to an

endowment by the emperor the smoke of the sacrifice of a bullock and

two lambs rose daily there to the “Supreme God.” The Roman soldiers

were directed, when they were on service at Jerusalem, to leave the

standards with the effigies of the emperor at Caesarea, and, when a

governor under Tiberius omitted to do so, the government ultimately

yielded to the urgent entreaties of the pious and left matters on

the old footing. Indeed, when the Roman troops were to march through

Jerusalem on an expedition against the Arabians, they obtained another

route for the march in consequence of the scruples entertained by the

priests against the effigies on the standards. When that same governor

dedicated to the emperor at the royal castle in Jerusalem shields

without imagery, and the pious took offence at it, Tiberius commanded

the same to be taken away, and to be hung up in the temple of Augustus

at Caesarea. The festival dress of the high priest, which was kept in

Roman custody at the castle and hence had to be purified from such

profanation for seven days before it was put on, was delivered up to

the faithful upon their complaint; and the commandant of the castle

was directed to give himself no further concern about it. Certainly

it could not be asked of the multitude that it should feel the

consequences of the incorporation less heavily, because it had itself

brought them about. Nor is it to be maintained that the annexation of

the land passed off without oppression for the inhabitants, and that

they had no ground to complain; such arrangements have never been

carried into effect without difficulties and disturbances of the peace.

The number, moreover, of unrighteous and violent deeds perpetrated

by individual governors must not have been smaller in Judaea than

elsewhere. In the very beginning of the reign of Tiberius the Jews,

like the Syrians, complained of the pressure of the taxes; especially

the prolonged administration of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all

the usual official crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as

the same Jew says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign

maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set them

aside or violated them. This is the more to be recognised, seeing

that the same emperor in the West interfered against the Jews more

emphatically than any other (p. 172), and thus the long-suffering and

caution shown by him in Judaea cannot be traced back to personal favour

for Judaism.

 

[Sidenote: The Jewish opposition.]

 

In spite of all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman

government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of

the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace. The

payment of tribute was assailed, not perchance merely because it was

oppressive, but as being godless. “Is it allowable,” asks the Rabbi in

the Gospel, “to pay the census to Caesar?” The ironical answer which

he received did not by any means suffice for all; there were saints,

though possibly not in great number, who thought themselves polluted

if they touched a coin with the emperor’s image. This was something

new--an advance in the theology of opposition; the kings Seleucus and

Antiochus had also not been circumcised, and had likewise received

tribute in silver pieces bearing their image. Such was the theory; the

practical application of it was made, not certainly by the high council

of Jerusalem, in which, under the influence of the imperial government,

the more pliant notables of the land directed the vote, but by Judas

the Galilean from Gamala on the lake of Gennesaret, who, as Gamaliel

subsequently reminded this high council, “stood up in the days of the

census, and behind him the people rose in revolt.” He spoke out what

all thought, that the so-called census was bondage, and that it was a

disgrace for the Jew to recognise another lord over him than the Lord

of Zebaoth; but that He helped only those who helped themselves. If

not many followed his call to arms, and he ended his life, after a few

months, on the scaffold, the holy dead was more dangerous to the unholy

victors than the living man. He and his followers were regarded by the

later Jews alongside of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, as the

fourth “School;” at that time they were called the Zealots, afterwards

they called themselves Sicarii, “men of the knife.” Their teaching was

simple: God alone is Lord, death indifferent, freedom all in all. This

teaching remained, and the children and grandchildren of Judas became the leaders of the later insurrections.