Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:44:24.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Paid the Temple Tax When the Jews Were Under Roman Rule?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Sara Mandell
Sara Mandell
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes & Observations
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 223 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Some scholars cautiously state that the tax was required of all Jews; see, e.g., Tcherikover, Victor A. and Fuks, Alexander, eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964) 1. 80Google Scholar; Ginsburg, Michael S., “Fiscus Judaicus,” JQR n.s. 21 (1930–1931) 284Google Scholar; Smallwood, E. Mary, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 124–25Google Scholar; M. P. Charlesworth, “The Flavian Dynasty,” CAH 11. 15; A. H. M. Jones, “Jews,” Oxford Classical Dictionary 468; Shmuel Safrai, “Temple,” EncJud 15, 980; H. Hamburger, IDB 1. 843; 3. 428; 3. 818; 1. Bruce, A. F., “Nerva and the Fiscus ludaicus,” PEQ 96 (1964) 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Juster, Jean, Les Juifs dans l'empire romain: leur condition juridique, économique et sociale (2 vols.; Paris: Geuthner, 1914) 1. 378–79Google Scholar; Safrai, “Temple,” 980. But see Anthony J. Marshall, “Flaccus and the Jews of Asia (Cicero Pro Flacco 28. 67–69),” Phoenix 29 (1975) 144–45 nn. 21–22.Google Scholar

3 For the legal aspects, see ibid., 144–45.

4 Cited by Freyne, Séan, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier and University of Notre Dame Press, 1980) 280. See also 302 n. 71.Google Scholar

5 See Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 125 n. 19.

6 ⋯ντες Ἰουδαῖοι (Bell. 7.6.6 § 218) means to exist or live as a Jew. The use of an otiose εἶναι in the participle and/or without an introductory verb of saying or naming is not attested (Goodwin, Greek Grammar 1535; Smyth, Greek Grammar, 1615).

7 Even Josephus's specific mention of “all the Jews throughout the habitable world” (πάντων τ⋯ν κατ⋯ τ⋯ς οἰκουμένης Ἰουδαίων; Ant. 14.7.2 § 110) is modified by the notation, “and those who worship God” (κα⋯ σεβομένων τ⋯ν θεόν). Josephus' argument is so weak that he has to support it by citing Strabo (Ant. 14.7.2 § 112).

8 See Tcherikover, Corp. Pap. Jud., 2. 112.

9 Ibid., Arsione Pap. Col. 11. 154, 170–72; Appianus Syr. 11.8.50. See also Juster, Juifs, 2. 281–82 n. 2.

10 Dio Cassius Reliquiae = Epit. 66.7.2 (ed. Boissevain 66 = Reliquiae Libri 65); Suetonius Dom. 12.2.

11 Thus, according to Suetonius (Dom. 12.2), it is the penis of the suspect that must be examined. Martial (7.55) makes it clear that it is the circumcised Jew who is subject to the tax in question. See also Horace Sat. 1.9.70; Petronius Sat. 102.

12 See esp. Flacc. 8.53; Tacitus Hist. 5.4–5.

13 See also Dio Cassius Epit. 66.7.2; 68.1.2. The Roman disapproval of this way of life is evinced by Dio's use of the verb ⋯ξοκέλλω (Epit. 67.14.2).

14 Josephus Bell. 7.6.6 § 218; Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas (=IGRR) 4. 667; 1431; 1743. See also Philo Leg. 23.156–57.

15 The restrictions are those of the Rabbis, not the city states. See Epictetus Diss. 2.9. See also Petronius frg. 47 (ed. Beucheler) = 24 (ed. Rouse); Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic Civilisation (3d ed.; rev. Griffith, G. T.; Cleveland/New York: World, 1961) 222.Google Scholar

16 Neusner, Jacob, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence oj Pharisaic Judaism (New York: Ktav, 1979) 65.Google Scholar

17 Bruce attempts (“Nerva,” 43, 45) to classify the Jews as a natio via a fictio.

18 See A. Momigliano, CAH 10, 864.

19 See Neusner, Politics, 45–66, for the pervasive Pharisaic power in Josephus' Antiquitates and for its minor role in his earlier Bellum.

20 Juster, Juifs, 2. 284 n. 4.

21 The Talmudic data cited by Juster (n. 20 above) are unsupported by Graeco-Roman data. See, e.g., Suetonius Dom. 12.2.

22 DJD 5. 6–7, no. 159; Allegro, J. M., “An Unpublished Fragment of Essene Halakhah (4Q Ordinances),” JSS 6 (1961) 72–73Google Scholar; Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1886–1890Google Scholar; trans, and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1979) 2. 271–72 n. 52; Liver, J., “The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,” HTR 56 (1963) 190–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 See Liver, “Offering,” 189, 195–96.

24 Bengston, Hermann, Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian: Ceschichte eines römischen Kaiserhauses (München: Beck, 1979) 77–78.Google Scholar

25 The reverse is not true. Even if it can be shown that all Jews under Roman hegemony were required to pay the Didrachmon as is commonly asserted (Hamburger, IDB 3. 428; Rostowzew, PW 6. 2404), this would not prove that all had previously paid the Temple Tax. S. Krauss suggests (“Fiscus Judaicus,” The Jewish Encyclopedia 5. 403) on the basis of b. Ketub. 66b that the Didrachmon was inflicted on the Jews precisely because they had not paid the Temple Tax.

26 The date of the imposition is in question. See, e.g., Rostowzew, PW 6. 2404; Juster, Juifs, 2. 282 n. 2; Tcherikover, Corp. Pap. Jud., 1. 80; 2. 114.

27 See Juster, Juifs, 1. 378, ibid., n. 2.

28 See Tcherikover, Corp. Pap. Jud, 2. 112–15.

29 For Jews as ἔθνος see IGRR 4. 1952; as λαός see IGRR 4. 853; “Addenda et Corrigenda,” 1743.

30 See P. Oxy. 7. 1020 line 5; see also Arthur S. Hunt, ed., P. Oxy. 1020 on line 5.

31 Mommsen, Th., Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Dunker & Humbolt, 1899; Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1955) 232Google Scholar; idem, Römisches Staatsrecht (3 vols; 3d ed.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1871–1888Google Scholar; Basel: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsantalt Graz, 1952) 1. 51, n. 50; ibid., n. 2. See also Arnold, W. T., The Roman System of Provincial Administration to the Accession of Constanline the Great (3d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1914Google Scholar; rev. E. S. Bouchier; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) 8.

32 Rostowzew, PW. 6. 2404.

33 Ibid., 2404–5.

34 Lewis, Naphtali and Meyer, Reinhold, Roman Civilization (2 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1951–1955) 2, n. 98.Google Scholar

35 The Alexandrians were citizens of a polis, but were defined as a provincia in t he original sense of the term. But see Tarn, Civilisation, 185–86.

36 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 9. 8; S. Riccobono, Fontes luris Romani Ante lustiniani, 1. 68; Rostowzew, PW. 6. 2404–5.

37 This would explain the designation of τ⋯ ἔθνος to the Jews as a recipient of payment in IGRR, 4. 1952.

38 See Jackson, Bernard S., “On the Problem of Roman Influence on the Halakah and Normative Self-Definition in Judaism,” in Sanders, E. P. with Baumgarten, A. I. and Mendelson, Alan, eds., Jewish and Christian Self Definition (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 2. 160–61.Google Scholar

39 Marshall, “Flaccus,” 144–45 and nn. 21–22. See Smallwood, E. Mary, “Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism,” CP 51 (1956) 2.Google Scholar

40 But see Ginsburg, “Fiscus Judaicus,” 285 and n. 21.

41 Brunt, P. A., “The ‘Fiscus’ and its Development,” JRS 56 (1966) 75–91.Google Scholar

42 Perhaps not with the full implications of damnatus, but only sufficiently so as to permit the imposition of this added tax upon them. See Berger, Adolf, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953)Google Scholars.v. bona damnatorum, publication bonorum, confiscari proscribere bona.

43 Bengston, Flavier, 77–78.

44 Juster, Juifs, 1. 348.

45 Circumcision in and of itself did not delineate the category, but rather circumcision joined to the following of the paternal customs and the living of a Jewish life.

46 Juster, Juifs, 2. 283 and n. 2.

47 Ibid.; Ginsburg, “Fiscus Judaicus,” 285–86, 288.

48 This is the meaning of Suetonius Dom. 12.2; Dio Cassius Epit. 66.7.2; Martial 7.55. This would explain the οἱ ποτ⋯ Ἰουδαῖοι (IGRR 4. 1431). For conversion, see esp. Juvenal Sat. 14.96–106; Smallwood, “Jews under Roman Rule,” 204–7.

49 For the Roman use of circumcision as a means of distinguishing Jews from other men, see Suetonius Dom. 12.2; Horace Sat. 1.9.70; Petronius Sat. 102; Martial 7.30; 11.94.

50 For the Pharisaic and/or Dead Sea communities' equation of circumcision with Judaism, see Jubilees 15; see also Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel: Étude sur les Relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'Empire Romain (135–425) (2d ed.; Paris: de Boccard, 1964) 127Google Scholar; E. Mary Smallwood (“Domitian's Attitude,” 3) equates circumcision with “practicing” Jews.