Imperial Law in Roman Judaea

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm wondering about the application of law in the provinces. There is a famous scene in John 18:31 that bears on the topic, but as you can see here, the crucial line is translated (from Greek) in so many different ways as to invite wildly different interpretations. (Andrew Dalby?)

 

The interpretation of the scene that makes sense to me is provided by Fergus Millar in "Reflections on the Trials of Jesus" (The Greek World, the Jews, and The East; p. 161, 163):

In John, by contrast, Passover, which has not yet arrived, dominates everything. It is because Jesus is brought before Pilate on the morning of the day whose evening will see the onset of Passover that Jesus' accusers will not enter the praetorium. It is, on this interpretation, because the sanctity of the festival prevents the holding of a capital trial even on the day before, that they tell Pilate, "

It is not permitted to us to kill anyone.

"... It was not Roman law but their own which made them say [this].

If Millar is correct (and he expresses the view only hypothetically), then it suggests that the Jews had a fair amount of autonomy in the region, which leads me to wonder about the status of Roman law in the provinces more broadly: What happened when local law forbade a given behavior but Roman law did not? What happened when local law permitted a given behavior but Roman law did not? If a behavior was forbidden by both Roman law and local law, did jurisdiction fall to the Roman magistrate or the local magistrate?

[Ingsoc]

I think it's depend on several factors:

 

The status of the people: usually a people who had the status of "allied and friends of the Roman people" (usually on the merits of their alliance with Rome before the Roman direct rule) had a right to some sort on self rule and this included the right of to held their own trials. on the other hand people who status was of occupied people had no such right.

 

The crime: it's likely that if the Romans saw the defendant as a threat to them, in such a case it's likely that the local Roma official would want to deal with him by Roman means or at least put pressure on the local courts to find him guilty and punish him accordinly.

[Nephele]

If Millar is correct (and he expresses the view only hypothetically), then it suggests that the Jews had a fair amount of autonomy in the region, which leads me to wonder about the status of Roman law in the provinces more broadly: What happened when local law forbade a given behavior but Roman law did not?

 

What an interesting topic.

 

I suppose that the Roman magistrate in charge would defer to the locals in most situations, so that there might not be a conflict that could result in local unrest. Unrest which could then cause embarrassment to the current reigning Roman magistrate, thereby making him look as though he didn't have matters under control.

 

Which, I should think, could lead to serious repercussions for Rome's middle managers, from the balebos in Rome.

 

In Michael Grant's The Jews in the Roman World, Grant relates (quoting Josephus) the mistakes made by Pontius Pilate upon assuming his new role as governor of Judaea. One such mistake occurred when Pilate brought his army from Caesarea Maritima for winter quartering in the city of Jerusalsem, and he had them carry military standards that bore the image of the emperor -- graven images that offended the sensibilities of Jerusalem's religious population. Adding insult to injury, Pilate then had these standards set up on the Antonia fortress, where the high-priestly garments were also being kept.

 

Pilate was following military protocol, which would be the new law of the land -- but this was in violation of the local religious laws. In response to this, hordes of the Jewish people followed Pilate to his residence and lay down on the ground, refusing to budge, for five days and nights. Michael Grant states that this was the first recorded example of civil disobedience. And, as a result, Pilate eventually backed down.

 

Since it was the Roman governor's job to maintain order, I think it would probably have exacerbated the problem if he had simply ordered his troops to start hacking to bits the disobedient citizenry. It seems that, in many cases, it would be more expedient simply to mollify the masses.

 

Perhaps the same slack was cut the locals in situations where the local laws permitted behavior that was not permitted by Roman law, provided that behavior affected only the locals and not any Roman citizens? I may be wrong, but I can't imagine the Romans in foreign provinces overly concerning themselves should the locals decide to stone one of their own for blasphemy, so long as it didn't affect any Romans.

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

I can't imagine the Romans in foreign provinces overly concerning themselves should the locals decide to stone one of their own for blasphemy, so long as it didn't affect any Romans.

 

This seems like a reasonable conjecture, but where it gets tricky is in the treatment of traders, colonists, and visitors to Judaea. There were at least three Roman colonies in or on the border of Judaea--Caesarea, Ptolemais (modern-day Acre), and Aelia Capitolina. Were the residents of these colonies under Roman law or under Judaean law? Also, what of the neighbors of Judaea when visiting Judaea? In Samaria, there was Flavia Neapolis (present-day Nablus)--under whose juridiction would these Samaritans fall? And (most perplexing to me) why would a Nazarene--who as a resident of Galilee was not part of the Roman province of Judaea--be subject to the authority of a Judaean governor? It might be argued that Nazarene Jews visiting Jerusalem were subject to local laws, but then would the same apply to visitors from Berytus and Bostra as well?

[caldrail]

So then, provincial law depends on who it concerns. If the judaeans take care of their own problem, then often a roman governor might not interfere - he wants an easy life and letting the locals carry on as much as possible isn't necessarily a bad thing since he's mostly there to keep the place peaceful and paying taxes. If the local problem impinges on roman interests then a stern hand is required. To what extent a roman governor might choose to intervene depends on his character as much as circumstance I would have said.

[Nephele]

I can't imagine the Romans in foreign provinces overly concerning themselves should the locals decide to stone one of their own for blasphemy, so long as it didn't affect any Romans.

 

This seems like a reasonable conjecture, but where it gets tricky is in the treatment of traders, colonists, and visitors to Judaea. There were at least three Roman colonies in or on the border of Judaea--Caesarea, Ptolemais (modern-day Acre), and Aelia Capitolina. Were the residents of these colonies under Roman law or under Judaean law? Also, what of the neighbors of Judaea when visiting Judaea? In Samaria, there was Flavia Neapolis (present-day Nablus)--under whose juridiction would these Samaritans fall? And (most perplexing to me) why would a Nazarene--who as a resident of Galilee was not part of the Roman province of Judaea--be subject to the authority of a Judaean governor? It might be argued that Nazarene Jews visiting Jerusalem were subject to local laws, but then would the same apply to visitors from Berytus and Bostra as well?

 

A good point. I did managed to dig up an article titled "How Rome Governed the Provinces," by Professor W.C. Morey of the Univeristy of Rochester, which was published in the July, 1893 issue of The Biblical World.

 

Professor Morey states that Roman governance granted a gradation of privileges among the provincial towns, depending on their loyalty to Rome and whether they existed as colonies (a body of Roman citizens sent into the province) or municipia (a body of provincials admitted into the state): "But the two terms were sometimes interchangeable, and the same constitutional form characterized them both." More importantly, some towns "possessed the full Roman franchise," whereas others "possessed only the Latin right of commercium." Examples which Professor Morey gives of towns possessing the full Roman franchise are Alexandria, Troas, Antioch in Pisidia, and Philippi. These cities possessed the right to pass their own municipal laws, levy their own taxes, and administer justice under their own charter.

 

A further distinction was made between those non-Roman towns that did not possess the full Roman franchise. Some were deemed civitates liberae ("free") whereas others were deemed civitates stipendiariae ("tributary"). Examples of civitates liberae, which were permitted to retain their own government, were the Syrian Antioch, Tyre, Tarsus, Rhodes, Thessalonica, Athens, and nearly all the cities of Greece.

 

The large majority of non-Roman towns were civitates stipendiariae, which meant that "while they were generally permitted to retain their own internal government and laws, they were obliged to bear the chief burdens of the Roman rule." Chief among those burdens, appears to have been the collection of taxes and other tribute for Rome, which would have been the main concern of the Roman governor above and beyond involvement in any perceived, petty internal affairs of the province's locals.

 

As for how traders, colonists, and visitors to Judaea might have been treated, as well as those neighbors of Judaea upon visiting the province, it would appear that they would fall under what Professor Morey refers to as "jus gentium, the Roman 'law of nations,' that law which was higher than the law of any single community." Professor Morey describes this universal law as being in large part an outgrowth of Rome's provincial system, "the most important element of Roman jurisprudence and also the greatest bequest of Rome to modern civilization."

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

As for how traders, colonists, and visitors to Judaea might have been treated, as well as those neighbors of Judaea upon visiting the province, it would appear that they would fall under what Professor Morey refers to as "jus gentium, the Roman 'law of nations,' that law which was higher than the law of any single community." Professor Morey describes this universal law as being in large part an outgrowth of Rome's provincial system, "the most important element of Roman jurisprudence and also the greatest bequest of Rome to modern civilization."

 

If the 'law of nations' was "the greatest bequest of Rome to modern civilization", it seems worthwhile to discover in detail what exactly was bequeathed to us. This is worth following up.

[Nephele]

As for how traders, colonists, and visitors to Judaea might have been treated, as well as those neighbors of Judaea upon visiting the province, it would appear that they would fall under what Professor Morey refers to as "jus gentium, the Roman 'law of nations,' that law which was higher than the law of any single community." Professor Morey describes this universal law as being in large part an outgrowth of Rome's provincial system, "the most important element of Roman jurisprudence and also the greatest bequest of Rome to modern civilization."

 

If the 'law of nations' was "the greatest bequest of Rome to modern civilization", it seems worthwhile to discover in detail what exactly was bequeathed to us. This is worth following up.

 

I thought so, too. But, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything specific on the jus (or, ius) gentium, such as a list of actual, instituted laws in their original wording.

 

Perhaps the reason for this can be found in an article titled "The Relationship of Jewish to Roman Law" by the late rabbi, librarian, and legal scholar, Boaz Cohen (for The Jewish Quarterly Review, April, 1944), in which Cohen wrote: "...the jus gentium never became a fixed or a fundamental part of Roman law, nevertheless it influenced subconsciously the legal thinking of its great jurists."

 

Cohen does explain in his article (citing references) that, after the subjugation of Judaea by Rome, Jewish and Roman tribunals had concurrent jurisdiction in civil matters. Although the rabbis would censure those Jews who carried their disputes to the Roman judges for settlement. But if one of the litigants were a Roman citizen, then the matter would necessarily have to be brought before a Roman judiciary.

 

Surprisingly, Cohen states that it was neither Roman nor Judaic law which exerted the greatest influence in the area, but rather "the Greco-Egyptian Volksrecht of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire."

 

It's an interesting article, published in two separate issues of The Jewish Quarterly Review, and brought to my mind your earlier comment in a different topic on this board, MPC: "Do you really assume that by virtue of being born a Jew, admiration of Rome was impossible? I think we have here on this board many living counter-examples!" (count me in). Rabbi Boaz Cohen also expresses his admiration of Roman law in the following summation: "Before concluding, let us note a striking contrast between Jewish and Roman law. The Romans were the only people of antiquity who disentangled completely their civil law from all their religious precepts in historical times... The Jews did not make this distinction. Perhaps the Greeks did not either... Now it was the total separation of the civil from the religious law that greatly facilitated the reception of Roman jurisprudence by the peoples of Europe in the Middle Ages."

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

Surprisingly, Cohen states that it was neither Roman nor Judaic law which exerted the greatest influence in the area, but rather "the Greco-Egyptian Volksrecht of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire."

 

Fascinating.

 

Also, it seems straightforward that a Jew might be tried under Jewish law, and a Roman under Roman law. But what of a child born to a Roman and a Jew. What of a child born to neither? Full-blooded Romans and Jews certainly weren't the only people passing through Judaea. Under whose jurisdiction did these people fall, since we can probably safely assume that they weren't allowed to kill and steal without penalty.

[Ingsoc]

Also, it seems straightforward that a Jew might be tried under Jewish law, and a Roman under Roman law. But what of a child born to a Roman and a Jew. What of a child born to neither? Full-blooded Romans and Jews certainly weren't the only people passing through Judaea. Under whose jurisdiction did these people fall, since we can probably safely assume that they weren't allowed to kill and steal without penalty.

 

Being a Roman is no question of ethnic origion but of the citizenship a person holds, now in accordence with Roman behaviour I think it's safe to assume that atleast some of the Jewish aristocrasy in Judea were made Roman citizens thanks to there support in Roman rule.

 

As for the people who were neither Jewish nor Roman, they were mostly lived in poleis and were subjected to their hometown law.

[Primus Pilus]

[mod interjection] Discussion of the Bible as a historical source split and moved to Academia

[Praebitorae]

I do not claim to be verry good at Law but I think in the eye's of the Romans Yeshia could be hold acountable on two counts.

 

[Nephele]

This discussion is verry helpfull to me getting a deeper inside on affaires in the province of Iudea.

Big THUMBS Up!

 

Salve, Praebitorae. For more information on Roman rule in Judaea, you may want to read this book (if you haven't already) that a few of us here have read and been recommending: classicist Michael Grant's The Jews in the Roman World. One Amazon reviewer wrote:

 

If you've read Josephus, Tacitus, etc. you already know the bare facts of the relationship between Jews and pagans (and also between both groups and early Christians). Grant interprets these sources rather than adding new facts.

 

-- Nephele

[Lex]

The ius gentium was the system of law used for all non-Roman citizens as well as the law used for relations between a Roman citizen and a foreigner/non-citizen. The main characteristics of these laws were that they were quite informal and had a strong reliance on good faith (bona fides) and equity (aequitas). It