Rome and
the Jews
|
To the present day, the heritage of those
times is still a burden on the human race.
|
Theodor
Mommsen
|
Introduction
The edict of Cyrus in 538 BC.
gave
permission for the exiles to return to their homeland, to rebuild
Jerusalem and
the temple, and live according to the statutes of Nehemiah and Ezra. It
was the
less well to do of the exiles, the “poor” and the fanatics, who took on
Cyrus
on his offer and went home. This did not entail political independence,
neither
from the Persian overlord nor his Seleucid successors. It did not even
entail
statehood, and there were renewed deportations under Artaxerxes Ochus (359-338 BC.).
“The small community of
exiles, driven
out by foreign rule, and brought back again by a change in the hands
wielding
that rule, began their new establishment by abruptly repelling the
remnants of
their kinsmen left behind to work the land for the invaders, and so
laid the
foundation for the irreconcilable feud between Jews and Samaritans. The
ideal
of national exclusiveness and priestly control holding the mind in
chains had
long before the Roman period developed under the government of the
Seleucids
the so called Mosaic theocracy, a clerical corporation with the
high-priest at
its head, which, acquiescing in foreign rule and renouncing the
formation of a
state guarded the distinctiveness of its adherents, and dominated them
under
the aegis of the protective power. This retention of the national
character in
religious forms, while ignoring the state, was the distinctive mark of
later
Judaism” (Mommsen).
However the Jewish
population in
Palestine was only a fraction of the Jewish communities in Babylonia,
Syria,
Anatolia, Egypt, and the Cyrenaica. (Cicero, Pro
Flacco, 28:68; Strabo, frag. 6, Josephus,
Antiquities, XIV, 7:2;
Wars II, 16:4, VII, 3:3; Philo, In
Flaccum, 7; Seneca, frag.
41-43; Augustine, City of
God 6:10; Acts 2:9-11). To some extent they were
creations by
Alexander’s, the Seleucids’ and the Ptolemys’ colonial policies. (Josephus Contra
Apion, II:4,
Antiquities XII:1; Appian Syr. 50).
Alexandria was as much a
city of the
Jews, as of the Greeks. Augustus’ census reckoned that there were one
million
Jews living in Egypt. In the Ionian cities of Greece, Augustus
attempted to
rewrite the charters of civil privileges and confronted the Jewish
quarters (or
‘collegia’)
with the
alternative, either to withdraw from their faith, or to assume full
responsibility as active participants in the municipal administration.
His
colleague in office, Agrippa, however decided in favor of the status
quo and
confirmed the exemption from military service for Jews, and their
Sabbath as
legal privileges. Previously this could be conceded only by individual
governors or the communities of the Greek provinces (Josephus,
Antiquities XII, 3:2;
XVI, 2:3-5).
“Augustus further directed the
governors of Asia
not to apply the rigorous imperial laws respecting unions and
assemblies
against the Jews” (Mommsen).
This was a sensitive issue. Even a
confident emperor,
such as Trajan (98-117
AD.), expressed concerns over
security,
when a provincial governor asked for permission to set up a
professional fire
brigade in Nicomedia (Pliny
the younger,
Letters X:24), a quiet place not exactly known for
political upheavals. The Roman
government was aware that legislative privileges for Jews could carry
the seed
of race hate and civil war into the local townships.
All over the East and on equal footing
with Greek
communities, the Jews had been granted political charters with their
own courts
and civil jurisdiction. All that was required from them, was use of the
Greek
language. This extended well into Palestine, where Aramaic had replaced
Hebrew.
The process of Hellenizing had been well under way long before Judas
Maccabeus.
If for nothing else, this is born out by the Greek names of the last
high
priests before the Maccabees and by most of the names of the Hasmoneans
themselves, such as Onias III., Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus (Josephus Antiquities XII, 5:1, 9:7).
So Jerusalem was already a
Hellenistic
city, even before the Seleucids intervened. In Egypt, Ptolemy II,
Philadelphus (309-246 BC.) ordered the sacred
scriptures of the
Jews to be translated into Greek. During this period the knowledge of
Hebrew
among the Jews in Alexandria was just as rare, as among Christian
readers is
the knowledge of the original Greek of the New Testament. The affluent
Judaism
of the Hellenistic Diaspora was anything but exclusive. The gospels
tell of
rabbis who traveled land and sea to make a proselyte. Gentile “friends
of
the faith”
could expect
to be admitted without being circumcised. Still: “Owing to the
barrier which
their deeply rooted religious observances formed around them, the Jews
never
became absorbed in the surrounding populations” (Richard
Gottheil).
All the same, for the
Gentile tax payer
Judaism was an attractive proposition. The civil privileges conferred
on Jews
by the Lagids and Seleucids induced a great number of non-Jewish
Orientals to
attach themselves to this privileged category of denizens in the
eastern townships.
Women in particular felt drawn to the Jewish faith.
Poppaea Sabina, Nero’s wife,
a woman with
an impeccable Roman pedigree, was known for her pious Jewish faith and
her
zealous patronage of Jews. Even royal houses, such as King Izates from
Adiabene
and his entire family, converted to Judaism (Josephus Antiquities
XX, 7:1,3).
However the Jews’ undisguised contempt
for the Hellenic cults, pageants, and gymnastic displays, and their
uncompromising religious propaganda, didn’t make them the most popular
people
on Earth, especially not among the Greeks.
In Parium and Tralles, the
exercise of
Jewish religion was prohibited by law (Josephus Antiquities
XIV, 10:8). At
Seleucia in Iraq, Greeks and Syrians
killed more than 50,000 Jews in a pogrom (Josephus Antiquities
XVIII, 9:9). How
little has changed. During the
Jewish War, Jews in Syria suffered from daily assaults and the city
council of
Antioch demanded their deportation. But when the Romans decreed
protection,
they meant it. In Halicarnassus any attempt, private or municipal, to
obstruct
Jewish observances was subject to fines (Josephus Antiquity
XIV, 10:23). For
a similar offence in Rome the
future pope Calixtus did time in the Sardinian mines (Hippolytus,
Philosophumena, 9:12). We notice an other act of
deliberate
anti-Semitism by the Christian clerical establishment even in its early
days
but the intellectuals of the period, Gentile and Jewish, used to treat
each
other with respect.
Nicolaus of Damascus,
himself a Gentile
and noted peripatetic philosopher, carried diplomatic missions to
Augustus and
Agrippa on behalf of his Jewish client, Herod the Great. Jews held
senior
positions in the Empire’s administration.
Tiberius Alexander was first
governor in
Judea and later chief of staff under Nero’s general in Syria, Corbulo.
He was
also responsible for preparing the campaign against Judea that
eventually would
lead to the fall of Jerusalem. Philo of Alexandria (BC. 20-50
AD.) attempted
to be the intermediary between
Judaism and Platonism. Pseudo Longinus’ brilliant essay On the
Sublime
might be the work by a Jew. As long as
the Temple in Jerusalem remained in operation, it functioned as the
spiritual
center of Judaism everywhere in the world, not unlike the Vatican or
the Kaaba.
Every member of a Jewish community was obliged to pay annually a
“didrachmon”
as tribute to the Temple in the homeland, which came in more regularly
than the
taxes to the state. Everybody was expected, at least once in his life,
to pay
Zion a visit and to sacrifice on Jehovah’s own real estate.
With Rome in charge the
Temple fell under
the jurisdiction of the pontifex maximus, the chairman of the board
for all legally acknowledged
cults in the realm, an office often held by the incumbent emperor. An
imperial
stipend provided funds for a daily sacrifice on the emperor’s behalf.
An
incident like Jesus’ alleged standoff on the Temple’s precinct much
more
offended the Roman authorities as it would have challenged the
Sanhedrin. Rome
had conceded to the spiritual chiefs of the Jews sufficient autonomy to
raise
their own taxes beyond the borders of Palestine and even beyond the
borders of
the Empire. This was an unique and ill advised privilege.
It invited financial
interventions from
the powers abroad, and especially the Persian regime did use this
influence to
stir up trouble and support one or the other faction or terrorist group
in
Palestine. It also created an internal dualism in the civil
administration,
since it permitted the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to hold authority and
civil jurisdiction
over all the Jews everywhere in the Empire. When the Sanhedrin
allegedly
authorized Paul to round up Jewish heretics in Damascus, he would have
acted
within the Sanhedrin’s rights and could have counted on Roman
cooperation.
The regime in Rome became
aware of the
implications. So the Romans were careful that the autonomous bodies of
Jews in
the East never became a model for the Western part of the Empire. There
was
toleration of their faith and Emperor Augustus favored a Jewish colony
in the
Roman suburbs. He even supplemented his largess for those who on
account of the
Sabbath had missed the payout (Philo, de
legatione). Yet
personally the emperor avoided all contact with Jewish
worship.
In fact the Jews may have
been privileged
"peregrini,"
but legally they remained foreigners and were deprived of all the
rights and
honors to which a citizen in the cities of Greece and in the Roman
state was
entitled. Which meant the Jews were subjected to taxes, from which the
citizens
were exempt. In the Greek cities they were required, as a matter of
principle,
to pay a municipal poll tax imposed upon foreign residents. The way out
was to
obtain the privilege of citizenship, which alone could assure full
equality.
This was bound to create difficulties for every Jew loyal to his faith:
the
right of citizenship made it difficult to maintain the privilege of
fiscal and
judicial autonomy and of exemption from military service.
The corporate charter of a
city in those
days required the worship of deities common to all the inhabitants
which
effectively excluded the Jews. The geographer Strabo (63-3 BC.), in his census of the four
classes of
inhabitants in Libya, made a distinction between Jews and citizens (Josephus,
Antiquities XIV, 7:2). Philo declared that the
Jews consider
as their "real homeland" the country they inhabit (Philo In Flaccum,
7) and we hear
that rights of citizenship
were indeed accorded to individual Jews: in Acts, Paul is depicted
calling
himself a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39)
and even claims the privilege of Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37-39). Somebody here was
desperate to provide
his protagonist with the right credentials - rabbinic education and
Gentile
legal status.
Roman citizenship was a way
to avoid all
problems with local jurisdiction; it carried advantages even in Greek
cities.
Since the time of Cicero there had been an electorate of Jewish
citizens in
Rome. (Philo, de
legatione 23; Cicero, Pro
Flacco, 28; Acts 6:9). In Ephesus, Sardis, and
Anatolia, a
considerable number of Jews possessed Roman citizenship (Josephus Antiquity,
XIV, 10:13,
14, 16-19). In
Jerusalem, in
66 AD., we hear of Jews who were Roman knights (Josephus, Wars II,
14:9).
However a Jew who had Roman
citizenship
did not possess the "jus honorum," unless he abjured, like
Tiberius Alexander, his
national customs. The same thing was true of a Roman who embraced the
Jewish
faith. Gradually a new identity, somewhat corresponding to a
citizenship of the
empire (Ulpian, L, 3; Digesta, L, 2:3) replaced the old system of
regional citizenships.
In 212 AD., Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana conferred Roman citizenship
on every
free man in the Empire. An empire of the nations, became a Roman nation
state. (Digesta, I. 5). Jews now became eligible
for the
"jus honorum," and the exercise of all civil rights, "connubium,
commercium, testamenti factio," and could even hold
guardianship over non-Jews (Modestin, L, 15:6, Digesta XXVII, 1). They now had all the
rights of
citizens, but continued to exercise only those which did not contravene
their
religion.
The pious Jew would neither
dine at the
table of a Gentile nor receive him at his own table. He would not go to
the
theaters, the circuses, the gymnasia, nor even read a secular book, "unless
it be at twilight."
Mixed marriages were something unheard of. And yet Josephus, Philo, and
even
Seneca, presented the entire world as rushing toward Jewish observances
(Josephus, Contra
Apion II, 39; Seneca, Augustinus Civis Dei,
VI:11; Philo, De Vita
Moysis, 2).
Other authors of the period made it a
point to distinguish the Jews by race from the Jews by adoption "gentis
eiusdem vel simila sectantes" (Suetonius, Tiberius 36; Dio
Cassius, XXXVII, 17).
Chronology
196 BC.
The Roman Senate abolishes
all tax
exemptions for clerics of any denomination.
186 BC.
The accusations by a
prostitute lead to
the prosecution and death sentence of 7000 members of a new cult, the
Bacchanalia, which had made its first appearance in Etruria (Livy, Histories
39:8-19).
180 BC.
The
prosecutions drag on
and the prosecuting official complains that he has to press charges
against
another three thousand people. The incident is of importance because it
did set
a legal precedent which affected the legislation and policies towards
foreign
cults, such as Christians and Jews, in the future.
168 BC.
Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 BC.) of Syria sets out on a
campaign against
Egypt. On the march he receives an ultimatum by the Roman Senate. The
king
doesn’t dare to ignore it and in his anger turns on the population in
Judea and
their national and religious institutions (1 Macc. 1:30-67, 2
Macc. 5:24 to
7:41).
167/6 BC.
This triggers Judas
Maccabee’s uprising
against the Seleucid dominance. From the numbers given in the book one
can
gather how small Judas’s band of guerilla fighters must have been (1 Macc. 3:1-26,
3:27-4:25; 2 Macc. 8).
161 BC.
Judas Maccabee sues for
support in the
Roman Senate (I Macc.
25:16-24). Soon
after he
dies in battle (1 Macc. 9:21).
The last high priest of the old theocracy, Onias IV, goes to Egypt into
exile
and with Ptolemy IV Philometor’s permission is errecting a new Temple
in
Leontopolis in Lower Egypt, the only other place apart from Jerusalem
where
Jews of the post-exilic era have performed sacrifices. It is meant to
become
the new center of Judaism and to replace the desecrated shrine in
Jerusalem (Josephus, Wars VII, 10:3).
161-143 BC.
Jonathan Maccabee slowly
consolidates the
Jewish possessions in Palestine and from the Seleucids in Syria
receives the
insignia of the high-priest, together with additional territory in
Samaria, and
with assurances for his military and civil authority over Judea (1 Macc. 9-10,
10:67-89).
142 BC.
The Hasmonean regime
negotiates a
permanent treaty with the Seleucids and establishes political autonomy,
the
first Jewish state after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Jonathan is
crowned
King of Judea. But the rationale of the Zionists under Nehemiah and
Ezra had
been that there should be no monarchy, not of the house of David nor by
anybody
else. This is still remembered and it creates a rift between the
factions in
the camp of the Hasmonens own supporters. In fact it remains part of
the
controversy between Sadducees and Pharisees well to the fall of
Jerusalem in 71
AD. and beyond, the Pharisaic position being that, although statehood
is
desirable, it is a good thing only, if under theocratic rule. Naturally
the man
sitting on the throne begs to differ.
139 BC.
The first Jewish enclave in
Rome. The
Roman Senate has a dim view of their proselytizing and the praetor
Hispalus, issues
a deportation order for Jews to leave the city on ten days notice (Valerius
Maximus I: 32).
135 BC.
John Hyrcanus succeeds to
the throne and
annexes the whole of Samaria and Idumea. The population in Idumea is
given the
choice of either circumcision or exile. The internecine controversy
with the
Pharisees intensifies (Josephus, Ant. XIII,
10:5, 6; the Talmud even accuses Hyrcanus of
murdering prominent figures in the movement, Talmud, Kidd 66a).
103 - 76 BC.
Jannaeus Alexander, King of
Judea. His entire
reign is a story of bitter strife with the Pharisees. (Josephus Antiquities
XIII, 5:9).
93 BC.
At the feast of Tabernacles,
King
Jannaeus officiates as his own high-priest and publicly makes a mockery
of the
ceremony. A common occurrence among the Hellenized elite of the period.
In Rome
round about this time it is said, a priest officiating at the
Haruspices
suddenly looked at his colleague and asked him how he could keep a
straight
face. In front of the populace, both priests doubled with laughter. In
Jerusalem the Pharisees in the crowd are outraged. The king calls in
his guards
and in the ensuing massacre it is alleged that some 6,000 people died.
The
Pharisees appeal to Syrians for aid. King Jannaeus repels the invading
army of
the Syrians and nails 800 Pharisees to the cross (sic!) (Josephus,
Antiquities XIII, 13,5).
75 BC.
Alexander’s wife Salome
succeeds as the
new queen. She draws on support from the Pharisees, who now are
beginning to
call for a theocracy even if that should mean the loss of political
independence. Queen Salome recalls the exiles, and for the first time
the
legend on the coinage uses the term “Sanhedrin.”
“Although Salome held the
title, the
Pharisees held the real rule of the country, and they administered
it with
the harshness, insolence, and recklessness of a fanatical religious
party which
suddenly obtains unlimited power. All who were suspected
of Sadducean leanings were removed by
intrigue or violence from the Sanhedrin. Previous ordinances differing
from
Pharisaical views were abrogated, and others breathing the new spirit
substituted. So sweeping and thorough was the change, that the
Sadducees never
recovered their former status, and those in office were obligated in
all time
coming to conform to Pharisaic practice” (Josephus,
Antiquities XIII, 1:4; 16:2).
67 BC.
King John Hyrcanus II
accedes to the
throne. It leads to civil war with his brother Aristobulus II who
deposes John
and drives him into exile. Sadducees and Pharisees are in open civil
war. The
Pharisees of the period can be best described as a fundamentalist
movement with
strong support in the peasantry. Sadducees represented a more urban,
even
cosmopolitan class of hellenized merchants and aristocrats. The
conflict is
fought with all the mindless brutality of a religious war.
63 BC.
The senate bestows on
Pompeus
extraordinary executive powers to conduct a campaign in the East. He
sends
Gabienus and Scaurus as ambassadors to broker an agreement between the
Jewish
factions. The attempt fails, partly because of high handed
interventions by
Gabienus who strips off the Jewish possessions along the sea board,
divides the
state into five independent administrative districts, reduces the
country to a
state of single city-domains and petty principalities, and takes away
Hyrcanus’
secular privileges. A delegation of 200 Pharisees appeals to Pompeius
directly
to intervene and reinstate John Hyrcanus II as the high-priest.
Pompeius obliges, but in
order to do so
is compelled to lay siege to Jerusalem and take Aristobulus prisoner.
He then
repeals most of Gabienus’ measures. He leaves the temple’s treasure
untouched
and makes provisions for the continuance of the service, but not
without
entering the holiest of holiest in the temple, and see for himself,
what all
the fuss is about. (Orosius 6:6; Dio 37:15; Plutarch Pompeius
41:42; Florus 1:39; Josephus,
Antiquities XIV, 3:3,4). He is not impressed and
leaves the
premises with a shrug.
61 BC.
The Roman Senate endorses
only some of
Pompeius’ dispositions and confirms Hyrcanus II as “Ethnarch” in Judea. But the newly
established
autonomy of the Greek cities along the seaboard is left untouched, the
Judean
supremacy over Samaria lifted, and the Decapolis released into
self-government (Josephus,
Antiquities XIV, 10).
59 BC.
The Senate is alarmed by the
annual drain
of bullion in Italy, most of which is collected and exported as
temple-tax to
Judea. In Anatolia the propraetor Flaccus confiscates the Jewish
temple-tax
collected in Asia Minor. Jewish clients through their patron in Rome
press
charges. Flaccus’ defense attorney is non other than Cicero (Cicero, Pro
Flacco, 28). The
principal tax for the Temple in
Jerusalem was the didrachma, an annual poll-tax raised by the Sanhedrin
in
Jerusalem from each Jewish adult at home and abroad (Philo, De
Legatione 23).
This always had provoced vigorous
opposition from the Greek municipalities.
55 BC.
Crassus, the triumvir,
plunders the
Temple and repeals the tax privilege of the Sanhedrin. Which of course
gives
cause to a heady anti-Roman sentiment not just with the fanatics in the
hills
but in the urban districts and in the diaspora as well. Cicero
publishes
Lucretius Carus’s atheistic poem De Rerum Natura. Lucretius’s objective was
to free man's
mind of superstition (meaning religion) and the fear of death. His poem
became
a landmark in Latin prosody and, despite clerical opposition, it’s
survival
stimulated the humanitarian rationalism of a much later age.
47 BC.
For his services to Caesar
the Dictator
in Alexandria the Romans award Antipater with full Roman citizenship
and the
title “epitropos”
(regent) of Judea (Caesar Bellum
Civile, Plutarch Caesar. Appian, Civil War). The Jewish kingdom is
granted complete
freedom from dues, occupation and levy. Antipater appoints his sixteen
year old
son, Herod, as governor of Galilee. The young man launches a full scale
campaign against the “bandits” (Josephus’ favorite term) in the hills
of
Galilee and executes their leader Ezekias. Herod gains popularity with
the
people and esteem with the Roman governor of Syria, but not with the
Sanhedrin
in Jerusalem (Josephus Antiquities
XIV, 8:3,5,
10:5-6, Wars I, 9:5, II, 18:6).
In Rome Julius Caesar reinstates the tax privilege of the Sanhedrin in
Jerusalem.
44 BC.
Caesar is assassinated. The
triumvirs
order an empire wide subscription. Judea is to supply five hundred
eighty
talents of silver bullion (15,000 kg.).
The money is provided but it causes an uprising in which Antipater
loses his
life. With Roman assistance, Herod apprehends and executes the
assassins (Appian Civil War
V:75). The
subscription was an exceptional
payment. But the only actual payment by Herod still on record is for
the lease
of territories from Cleopatra.
43 BC.
Hyrcanus’ nephew Antigonus
makes his
first bid for the throne. Herod drives him into exile, and marries
Hyrcanus’
daughter Mariamne. The consul Lentulus raises two legions of Roman
citizens in
Asia. At the request of Jews with Roman citizenship, Dolabella,
proconsul of
Asia, grants their exemption from the draft (Josephus Antiquities
XIV, 10:13). It
is setting a precedent.
40 BC.
Aided by Parthia, Antigonus
again invades
Judea. Hyrcanus is deposed and mutilated, Antigonus styles himself
“King
Antigonus.”
37 BC.
Herod the Great pleads his
case before
the Roman Senate. With the assistance of two Roman legions he captures
and
executes Antigonus. The Parthian contingents take Hyrcanus II hostage
and
withdraw (Josephus Antiquities
XIV, 9:5 –
11:4, Wars I, 10:8). Herod
then consolidates his power largely based on the Samaritan and Idumaean
contingents
in his military.
33 BC.
On Herod’s demand Hyrcanus
II is
extradited to Judea.
30 BC.
The eighty year old Hyrcanus
II is
executed on the charge of treason. (Pharisean and Jewish tradition has
remained
hostile to the memories of the Maccabees ever since.)
29 BC.
Herod executes the last
surviving
Hasmonean: his own wife Mariamne (Josephus,
Antiquities XV, 7; Wars I, 22).
22 BC.
Herod is beginning the
reconstruction of
the Temple in Jerusalem (Josephus,
Antiquities XV, 11:1). In the gospel according to
John this date is suggested to be the
year of birth for Jesus.
14 BC.
Augustus, again confirms the
Sanhedrin’s
tax privilege. It causes an outcry in the Greek cities of Greece,
Anatolia and
North Africa. Agrippa intervenes in favor of the Jews and with a series
of
edicts breaks the resistance in the Greek population (Josephus,
Antiquities XIV: 6:2-7; Philo,
De Legatione 40).
9 BC.
Herod constructs the new
harbor and city
of Caesarea and dedicates it to Augustus as a personal gift. A new
Samaria is
built and called Sebaste, from the Greek name for Augustus. Herod is
building
theatres, amphitheatres, and hippodromes for games, even at Jerusalem (Josephus,
Antiquities XV, 8:1,
XVI, 5:1; Wars I, 21:1, 5).
It doesn’t exactly endear him to the religious establishment.
4 BC.
After 34 years of rule and
after ten
marriages, Herod the Great dies, one of the great benefactors of
Hellenic
culture in Greece, but hated at home, and in his political activities a
jewel
of cruelty. “The Jews, being delivered from Herod’s tyrannical rule,
petitioned Augustus to put them under the jurisdiction of the legate of
Syria.
He, however, not willing to set aside Herod's will, gave to Archelaus
the half
of his father's kingdom, with the title of ethnarch, the royal title” (Josephus,
Antiquities XVII, 8:2, 9:2). Archelaus’ territory
included Judea,
Samaria, and Idumaea with the cities of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Sebaste,
and Joppa (Josephus,
Antiquities XVII, 11:2,
4-5).
6 AD.
Archelaus arouses opposition
by marrying
his brother's wife and is accused of cruelty by his subjects. "Not
able
to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them", Augustus banishes him to
Vienne,
in France (Josephus,
Antiquities XVII, 9,
13:1-2).
Augustus has no
longer any choice and places the administration of Archelaus’
territories under
the jurisdiction of the legate of Syria, with a governor for Judea
residing in
Caesarea (Josephus,
Antiquities XVII,
XVIII, 1:1).
Judah of Galilee (sic!) becomes the leader of a
rebellion.
Josephus describes him as a scholar and assassin. Judah declares paying
tribute
to Rome as a violation of Jewish religious law. Israel, he says, should
have no
king but God. Judah is apprehended and killed and his followers form a
new
terrorist organization, the Sicarii (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Wars
2:117-8,
Antiquities 18.1-8). If
going by the birthday given in John, Jesus would have been about 26 or
28 at
the time and would not only have lived in Judah’s immediate
neighborhood, but
could even have participated in the events. That’s why Judas Iscariot
is a
character in the story as well. This is of course pure speculation, but
it
could explain why a knowledgeable writer like Luke, who knew his
Josephus well,
would place Jesus’ date of birth into the year 6 AD. It would exonerate
Jesus from unsavory political affiliations. However it is rather
telling that in the end even Luke has his Jesus advise the companions
to sell their garments for swords.
19 AD.
After a scandal in the
capital, a “senatus
consultum”
orders all
Jews and the worshippers of Isis to evacuate Italy within a given
period of
time, or to cease practicing their rites. As a penal measure Emperor
Tiberius
orders the drafting of 4,000 Jews into the army and their deportation
to
Sardinia (Philo, de
legatione 24, ad
Gaium 36, Flaccus 1; Tacitus, Annales,
2:85 (the authenticity of the Annales is not beyond reproach); Suetonius, Tiberius,
36).
26 AD.
The first year of Pilate’s
tenure as “praefectus
iudaeae” (indicated
by Jn. 18:12) which is not a “procurator”
as the
Synoptics would have it. Pilate has repeated standoffs with the
natives: "He
provoked a fresh uproar by expending the temple treasure upon the
construction
of an aqueduct. The populace formed a ring round the tribunal of
Pilate, and
besieged him with angry clamor. He, foresaw the tumult and a troop of
his
soldiers in plain clothes and armed with batons mixed with the crowds.
From his
tribunal he gave the signal and in the stampede many Jews perished from
the
blows or trodden to death by the fleeing crowd" (Josephus
Wars II.175-177,
Antiquities
XVIII, 60-62).
29 AD.
A native from Galilee, in
his late
forties or early fifties, according to John, has been allegedly
executed. If we
accept the story as it is told, the defendant’s conduct according to
the
gospels’ own testimonies (Mt. 8:21-22,
10:35, 19:29, 12:48-49, 27:11, 27:37; Mk. 15:2,
15:26; Lk.8:19-21,
9:59-60, 12:53,
14:26, 23:3, 23:38; Jn. 2:14,
6:15, 18:33, 19:7-8, 19:19) had made him liable to
charges under the
"Lex Julia Maiestatis," the 5th
commandment, and to charges of
blasphemy. All of which was punishable by death.
The gospels give us the
story of a man
who had earned notoriety as a wandering exorcist (Mk. 1:39) and ferocious prophet of
imminent doom (Mk. 1:15, 6:7,
6:11,
9:1(!), 13:26; Mt. 10:5; Lk. 9:62,
10:1; ). Mark
has Jesus sending herds of possessed pigs over a
non-existing precipice into a “nearby” lake some thirty miles
away (Mk. 5:13). The real miracle here is the
pigs. What had they been doing in a nice Jewish orthodox neighborhood?
The
absence of pig bones in ancient garbage dumps is how archeologists
identify
a Jewish settlement. Or did Jesus tour the villages with a herd of
porkers in
order to rough up the animals as a sign for his miraculous powers? I
heard they
still do this sort of thing in India.
Anyway, in a culture
obsessed with demons, Jesus is presented as a typical cult leader, a
conman who constantly refers to his melodramatic powers as an exorcist
as the
credential that would confirm his messages (Lk. 11:20). The authorities on the
other hand saw no reason to think of Jesus as a man of learning, in the
verbal exchanges
they used “rabbi” as an ironic taunt. Even the common people marveled “how
does this man know letters, having
never
learned?” (Jn. 7:15). But unlike the unlearned
peasant only a genuine rabbi would have been in a position to catch
Jesus fibbing when he pronounced: “Have
ye not
read in the law, how on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple
profane the
Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Mt. 12:5). There
is no such law.
So, with this in mind,
John’s background
story does check out. After years of a cat and mouse game with the
authorities Jesus could
no longer risk showing his face in Jerusalem. On the
festivals
the leader stays behind with a lame excuse: “You go up: I will not,
for my
time is not yet come.”
Only after he'd received an ‘all clear,’ Jesus goes there too, “not
openly,
but as it were in secret” (Jn. 7:10). In the end even Luke,
after he had so
painfully contorted his genealogy in order to dissociate his Jesus from
all
possible connections with the notorious Sicarii (see above 6
AD.) suddenly is
left with nothing better
than make his hero instruct the companions to sell their garments for
swords.
The gospels make Jesus face
two different
trials in the brief span of 24 hours: one before the Jewish High Priest
and one
before the Roman Governor.
Contrary to the
anachronistic
protestations in John’s gospel (18:31) before the fall of
Jerusalem the Jewish authorities did have the authority to pass
capital punishment by means of stoning, burning, or slaying, even
extended their jurisdiction outside of Jerusalem as the evangelist
himself is very well aware of (see Acts 6:12; 7:59
and 9:2). A
session of the Sanhedrin at night, especially on the night to Passover,
was of course strictly against the law, but the gospels are explicitly
designed to besmirch the Jews. Only Luke couldn’t resist to show off
with his knowledge and squeeze the session into the early morning, thus
digging himself a hole with his timing. In his version people rush
around in the jerky quickstep of silent motion pictures and after being
brought before Pilate, Luke drags the defendant twice across town, from
Pilate’s chambers to the tetrarch’s palace and back, with
interrogations on both ends, all within thirty minutes. It would take
more time to buy a sheep on the
market. Also Deuteronomy (17:6 and
19:15) decrees
that no person may be convicted on one testimony alone, which has been
interpreted to exclude even a verdict on the strength of one’s own
confession, which if true would make this provision the first habeas
corpus to deter from interrogations under torture. So what is the
meaning here when the Sanhedrin dismisses witnesses as untrustworthy (Mk. 14:59; Mt. 26:59-60) and passes a "verdict"
based entirely on Jesus' own confession (Mk. 14:62-64; Mt. 26:65-66)? And would it not have been
as simple as it was expedient to keep the prisoner in custody until
after the festival, as Mark (14:2) has suggested? Why this
rush?
There is only one possible
explanation:
Pilate was already waiting because he himself had issued the warrant
for Jesus'
arrest.
John was aware of this possibility so he has the arrest carried out
under the
supervision of a Roman centurion (Jn. 18:12). His presence would be
inexplicable without orders by his
superior (Wellhausen). But the course of events
is far from
clear.
To begin with, we are
supposed to believe
that at Jesus’ arrest an act of armed resistance did not lead to
additional
arrests. John even named Peter as the man who unsheathed the sword.
Then why
was he allowed to go free? Peter was even left unmolested when he “followed
afar off”
and allegedly
sat with Jesus’ captors at the same fire. Matthew alleges that at the
arrest “all
the companions forsook Jesus, and fled.” Everybody hurtled to
Galilee into hiding, a good fifty
kilometers on the trot. As it is, all the evangelists carefully avoid
to
explain by what authority Peter possibly could have witnessed
proceedings
which, according to custom and law, in both trials mostly happened
behind
closed doors.
The Romans were not only
sticklers to protocol and procedure, they’ve written the book. But when
Jesus is brought before Pilate we are treated to the grotesque
caricature of a Roman judge who is hopping up and down from his high
seat like a yo-yo and is going out of his way - and out of his chambers
- to solicit a verdict with the mob in plain view. view. In those days
the legal system was lacking a public prosecutor, but Roman law is also
a stickler to the principle that there cannot be collective
accusations: “The vain voice of the people is not to be listened to" (Codex Justinianus IX:47, 12). The
prosecuting party therefore was required to hire an attorney to
properly frame and present
the
charges and the Jewish council knew it. In Acts (24:1) we see the Sanhedrin
appoint a prosecutor. In the gospels
however the charges are not brought before Pilate at the beginning of
the
trial, nor placed before the defendant - so that he may frame his plea
- but
only bit by bit in the course of the proceedings (Jn. 19:7-8) by way of threats,
blackmail, innuendo, and warnings
shouted at the governor (Jn. 19:12 etc.).
How Pilate could possibly find “no guilt” when the defendant was
pleading guilty on all charges is
never explained. Only a Jewish judge under the directive from
Deuteronomy would
have continued proceedings, because in a Jewish court a confession was
not
admissible and lese-majeste not a crime.
But why should a Roman judge
observe
Jewish law, especially this Roman judge who at the end
of his tenure was going to be called
to account for "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages and indecent
assaults, constantly repeated executions without trial (sic!), ceaseless and supremely
grievous
cruelty" (Philo, De
Legatione 301-3)?
To top it all, Pilate then
is said to have offered the release of Barnabas, an already convicted
criminal. The governor, too, was
answerable
to his superiors. It was exclusively the Emperor's prerogative to
pardon a
convicted man. Any violation of the imperial prerogative was a
treasonable
assumption of excessive powers and punishable under the Lex Julia. (Digesta 48,8,4 and Mommsen; also
reflected in the
right of appeal - see Acts 26:32). So what could possibly
have compelled Pilate to open himself to legal actions and indictments
on such from his perspective comparably insignificant matter?
Luke (23:4) makes it look, as if Pilate
tried to move on the buck to Herod
the Tetrarch. But there was no provision in the law for Pilate to
delegate the
governor's powers inherent in the Ius Gladii to a tetrarch or any other
individual, (Digesta 1, 6, 6; 1,
21, 1; 50,
17, 70). Herod
himself had
full criminal jurisdiction in Galilee. He could follow up on an
acquittal by
Pilate with an investigation of his own and even pass capital
punishment. It
would have been a smooth move by the governor - deliver death, without
being
personally responsible - but that is not the story the gospels are
telling us.
Pilate did not acquit Jesus. But had he handed over a case of
lese-majeste to
the tetrarch without such acquittal, Pilate would have made himself
answerable
to charges and thus invite political blackmail, and this by the
tetrarch, of
all people, who was the Emperor's good friend, and up to this point in
time
Pilate's personal enemy (Lk. 23:7-12).
Herod was not at all such insignificant figure as some analysts like to
depict
him. He held a seat in the Roman Senate and during stays in Rome his
seniority
gave him the position of Speaker of the House.
However Peter’s own words in
this absurd charade betray that he hadn’t witnessed anything. In Acts
he refers to
Jesus as
the one “whom they slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts 10:39).
Obviously in his Galilean
hideout he had
no way of knowing any better and the liturgical formula of the “Christ
crucified”
still waited
to be invented. If Luke is to be trusted, the “resurrection” was
proclaimed the
first time in a place fifty kilometers away from Jerusalem and always
by the
same person who is asking us to take his word for it. “God raised up
Jesus
of Nazareth on the third day, and showed him openly,” Peter says, and now
listen to this, “not
to all the people, but unto chosen witnesses” (Acts 10:41). Here it is; the man says
so himself. The oldest con in the world.
The uninvolved bystander
sees absolutely nothing, no visions, no Je