1 The most interesting documents on the subject of private law appear to be Papyrus Murabba 'at (Mur.) 19, 20, 21. These comprise a document of repudiation and two contracts of marriage drawn up in a manner which seems to correspond exactly with that laid down by rabbinic law. As for the formalities for the drawing up of the contracts, however, they do not seem to be in conformity either with the norms of ancient Jewish law or with those of which we are informed by the talmudic sources. The documents which originate from the desert of Judah are double documents, i.e., they are drawn up in duplicate on the same sheet of papyrus, one part of which is folded and sealed while the other is open. The most ancient Jewish contractual document appears, on the contrary, to have been drawn up as two distinct copies, one of which was sealed and the other open (cf. my earlier observations in “‘spr hhtwm e spr haglwy’ di Ger. XXXII, 7–14 nella interpretazione dei Padri della Chiesa” (1963) 11 Rivista Italiana per le Scienze Giuridiche (RISG) 381–386.

For their part the rabbis distinguish shtar pashut from shtar mequshar thus demonstrating a completely different practice from that of the double document. We should thus conclude, at least as regards such material as has already been published, that the documents from the desert of Judah, although they are faithful in their content to the norms of Jewish law, seem to reflect in their form a practice which was widespread in Palestine as it had been in Egypt ever since the Hellenistic period, a custom which was in fact left unaltered by the Romans. It should however be noticed (here I limit myself to a mere mention since I have dedicated a note to this subject, “Nuovi documenti provenienti dalla Grotta delle Lettere” (1972) 14 BIDR, 337–347) that contracts coming from the so-called Cave of Letters, especially those of sale and of marriage seem to bear witness to the observation, even at the formal level, of biblical and rabbinical dictates. However it would still remain true that, at least as regards private law, local customs were preserved intact by the Romans.

2 Momigliano, , Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano (Bologna, 1934; reprint, Amsterdam, 1967).Google Scholar

3 Ricciotti, , Storia d'Israele (Torino, 5th ed., 1964) vol. II.Google Scholar

4 Liebmann-Frankfort, , “Rome et le conflit judéo-syrien, 164–161 B.C.”, in (1969) 38 L'antiquité classique, 116 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 It is well-known that the council of elders or notables (the most common term adopted by biblical sources is that of zeqenim, but other sources also use equivalent terms) had, on return from exile, taken over the task of representing the people with central authorities and mention was often made of this in official documents. Ezra 5:9, for example, quotes the copy of a letter sent to King Darius by Tattenai, the Satrap of Trans-Euphratene, to report on the work of reconstruction of the Temple undertaken by the Judaeans under the guidance of the elders; Ezra 6:7, then, quotes the reply of Darius to this letter in which are mentioned the high commissioner of the Judaeans and the elders of the Judaeans. Furthermore, from the Cowley Papyrus no. 30 it emerges that in the 5th century B.C.E. the Judaeans living in Elephantine, an island on the Nile in Upper Egypt at the border with Nubia, wishing to receive news from Jerusalem as to the precise date for celebration of the Passover, declare that they have sent letters to this effect “to your lord (Bagoa), to Yohanan, high priest, and to his colleagues who are in Jerusalem, to Ostane, brother of Anani and to the notables of the Judaeans orei ha-yehudim)”. In fact in this respect it should be noted that the term orim (notables) also occurs in Nehemiah 2:16, 4:8; 4:13, together with the term s'ganim and that in the language of Nehemiah, according to the authoritative opinion of De Vaux, , Les Institutions de l'Ancien Testament (Paris, 1961) vol. 1, p. 110Google Scholar, it seems to correspond to that of zeqenim (elders). Lastly, the edict of Antiochus III of 198 B.C.E. to grant to the Jews the freedom to live according to their ancient traditions explicitly names the members of the gerousia amongst those exonerated from the payment of certain tributes (Ant., 12:142).

6 Cf. Bickerman, , Les Institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938) 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Cf. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (CIG) 2458.

8 Generally speaking, Rome actually encouraged these discords with the ultimate aim of weakening the power of the reigning dynasties and hence laying a basis for the future annexation of vast territories. It will be enough to quote the example of Egypt. The infiltration of Rome in the complex affairs of the kingdom of the Ptolemies goes back to the time when it provided help in averting the menace of Antiochus, who, profiting from the inexperience of the heir of Ptolemy V, had attempted to take possession of the kingdom. “A simple order of the Roman legate”, to quote Oliviero who has provided one of the most extensive comments on the affairs of this period, “had torn Egypt from the hands of Antiochus, giving it back to the young kings, and the fact was to be remembered with legitimate pride, quanta cura regum amicorum liberos tueatur p.R., documento Ptolomaeum, Aegypti regem esse. However the Senate did not consider it advantageous to carry its work further and give back unity to the dynasty. A union of kings with equal rights but certainly not based on the principle of dynastic right” (cf. Oliviero, , Le stele di Tolomeo Neoteros, re di Cirene (Bergamo, 1937) 27).Google Scholar In fact, beside Ptolemy VI, the legitimate sovereign, Rome now placed Ptolemy Euergetes, the younger brother, “raised up to the sceptre by popular revolution”.

Nor has there been any lack of discussion as to the reasons that may have induced Rome into making such a decision. On this subject, Barbagallo, , Le relazioni politiche di Roma con l'Egitto dalle origini al 50 a.C. (Rome, 1901) 86, 87Google Scholar observes: “The experience which Rome had had to undergo of the diplomatic gifts of Philometor as opposed to the ignorant selfishness of his brother, which in other conditions could have been fatal for Egypt, had been too evident for them not to lean towards the second. The latter did nothing but embark on a policy whose fruits would ripe with time, perhaps leading Rome to the point of attempting, though not with her own hands, the coveted definitive conquest of Egypt. With this rosy prospect, it was no bad plan to use all means at her disposal in order to excite him, her only task being to carry out the first operations”. Thus, the restitution of the kingdom to the Ptolemies and the attempt to compromise their power by placing the two brothers at the same level, or actually setting them up in opposition, form part of the same political design. This plan may be said to have reached complete fulfilment when, in 163 under the guise of helping the brothers to reach a definitive agreement, Rome managed to make them sign a treaty in which the kingdom is divided, with one brother reigning over Cyrene (Ptolemy Neotheros) and the other over Egypt and Cyprus (Ptolemy VI).

According to Oliviero (op. cit.): “The Senate's decision to hear the cry of pain issued by Ptolemy VI in fact resulted in the creation of a separate and independent kingdom which had the advantage … from the Roman point of view, of dividing the Ptolemaic kingdom into two. The agreement, apparently reached respecting all the formalities, but actually under the threat of worse difficulties for the contracting parties, from then on gave the Romans the right to intervene again whenever the need arose. Without doubt this was a serious blow to that construction which had been so carefully put together by the first Ptolemies. Ptolemy VI only resumed his kingship together with Queen Cleopatra and for a part of the year they appointed Memphis as their residence… At the same time the brother went to Cyrene but in his heart he was not happy with the decision which he had accepted and sworn to, maintaining that Cyprus should also be his”.

And the question of the attribution of sovereignty over Cyprus offered Rome a new and excellent pretext to take a further step in her ever more marked involvment in the internal affairs of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Going even further, we may say that the question of Cyprus allowed Rome to lay the basis, founded on right, for the annexation of the whole of Egypt. It is well known that, when direct conflict with his brother was imminent, Ptolemy Neotheros drew up a document in which he declares that he leaves to the Romans “the kingdom which is their due”.

In the same way as for the senatus-consultum ratifying the foedus with the ethnos ton loudaiōn, (I Macc., 8:17–19) and many other documents of which the political purpose which inspired them has not been understood, doubt has been cast on the authenticity of this document. However Oliviero (op. cit., at 27) observes that “It was the Roman Fortune that porrigere se ad orientalta regna, non contenta Italicis terminis, coeperat (Justinus, 39, 5, 3)”. And Volterra, , “Sulla capacità del populus romanus di essere istituito erede” (1938) 16 Studi sassaresi 17Google Scholar adds that, as proof of the authenticity of the document, understood from the Roman judicial viewpoint as a true institution of heirs one may point to the behaviour of the Roman Senate. We have seen how Rome, in involving herself in the question of Egypt, did not hesitate to undermine the unity of the Ptolemaic kingdom, not restoring it to the legitimate sovereign, but placing him side by side with a sovereign who gained his position by popular revolution and by the support of Rome herself. It must now be stressed that this support was purely formal in nature since, once the aim of laying the basis for her legitimate intervention in Egypt had been achieved, Rome did not hesitate to abandon her protégé although the latter was then in need of an intervention based on the force of arms rather than on that of words. It is the same policy which Rome adopted with respect to other insurrectionist movements. They were always fostered in order to weaken the established monarchies. In this case too, her support, generally speaking, was purely formal. In fact, it normally consisted of recognizing what the insurgents had already achieved by their own strength and Rome was always ready to withdraw even this support in case of failure. The case of Timarchus who, almost at the same time as Judah, took the leadership of an insurrectionist movement against Demetrius I, may be taken as a typical example of this policy. Diodorus Siculus (27 a) informs us that, after the death of Antiochus IV, Rome attempted to oppose Demetrius' attempt to take possession of the kingdom and that Timarchus endeavoured to use this fact in his favour. Diodorus reports that, when not only the other kings but also some of the satraps subject to Demetrius had become aware of Rome's attitude, they became hostile, Timarchus more than any of them. Having supplied himself with ample financial means, he attempted to corrupt senators, particularly those with financial difficulties and, making serious accusations against Demetrius, persuaded them to approve a senatus-consultum conferring on him the title of king. In spite of this recognition however, in the end Rome's aid was not forthcoming since, when Demetrius had prevailed and acceded to the throne, she did nothing to prevent the king, whom she had herself created, from being put to death.

The episode therefore conforms with Rome's usual policy, and Judas Maccabaeus himself who was clearly well acquainted with this policy was soon to suffer a similar experience.

9 It must be stated that, generally speaking, they avoid all reference to the Maccabees. According to some, this omission may be explained by the fact that there must have existed a scroll, which was later lost, known as the scroll of the Hasmonaens, relating at length the history of the Hasmonaean dynasty and taking on the nature of an official chronicle. According to others, on the other hand, the Rabbis would have taken care to avoid drawing the attention first of the Greeks and then of the Romans in a negative way. The latter had by then finally subdued the Judaeans and they would certainly not have looked with favour on celebrating the victory of the Maccabees, an event which could rekindle nationalist feelings. It would not therefore be very surprising if, even in the account of the purification of the Temple, the role played by Judas Maccabaeus in this extremely important event was passed over in silence. All the same an echo of these events may be perceived in these sources as in other post-biblical sources in general. An example is the Megillat Ta'anit (or Scroll of the Fasts) which contains a chronicle of those commemorative days for the Judaean community during which public mourning and fasting are forbidden. These days, although they did not become feast days just because they were recorded in the Megilla are nonetheless well known and celebrated as long-standing custom by the people. The aim of the anonymous author is to excite the spirit of freedom in the people, by mentioning victories and in particular that won at the time of the national revolt inspired by the Maccabee brothers. This source, although clearly not legal in character is still a most valuable one. Talking of the purification of the Temple and of the miracle of the flask of oil which had taken place on this occasion, the Megillat Ta'anit, as well as the passage of the Talmudic tractate Shabbat 21b which refers to the Maccabees, in fact reports thus: “When the Hasmonaean dynasty prevailed over them [the Greeks] and conquered them, they sought and found only a drop of lamp oil, enough for just one day.” Moreover, the Megillat Antiochos, a pseudo-epigraphic text of uncertain date which has not come to us in the original form and which concentrates on the persecution of Antiochus and the deeds of the Maccabee brothers, contains another passage, equally worthy of mention, which reads: “And the kingship was assumed by the sons of the Hasmonaean and by their sons from that time until the destruction of the House of the Lord.”

From the literal interpretation of these texts one might therefore deduce that, on the occasion of the purification of the Temple the Maccabees were actually invested with the kingship. However, these texts, drawn up essentially with the aim of celebrating the victories of the Maccabee brothers, who by their deeds were able to restore freedom to the people, tend to attribute to them a legal authority which has no basis in historical reality. Furthermore it seems that the term malkhut was not considered as being used in a technical sense. In fact it seems to refer to that kingship which derives from investiture as a priest rather than that which derives from temporal power. Nonetheless it is possible that in the case of Judah it may not be a question of a true misuse of language but rather that even the post-biblical sources, like Flavius Josephus, tended to recognize Mattathias and his descendents as high priests. Coming from a priestly family, though not of the lineage of Aaron, they would legally have been able to aspire to the priesthood. In fact, in the eyes of the population and of the orthodox they had much to their credit since they had succeeded in striking down the pagan idols and in reconsecrating the Temple. It is thus natural that popular opinion should have overlooked the fact, which in other circumstances could have been a serious obstacle, that, being of priestly stock but not descended from Aaron, they could not have assumed the high priesthood.

Bearing in mind the other merits that they had acquired in the view of the people, liberated not only from the yoke of the Seleucids, but also from the negative influence of a Hellenizing priesthood, it is even possible to explain how public opinion came to see in them the founders of a new priestly dynasty. This would also explain the fact that the author of the Chronicon Paschale numbers Judah amongst the high priests at the head of the Judaean nation since the return from exile. Thus not even Flavius Josephus would be mistaken then in considering that just such a feeling of gratitude had induced the people of Judaea to recognize Judah as high priest, even though in the text of the Maccabees we are clearly shown that in fact only Jonathan had officially held the holy investiture.

10 In chronological order the first official document that may be quoted as proof of the above assertion is the decree issued by Cyrus to promote the return of the Judaeans from exile and the reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ezra, 1:3). After stating that he had been inspired to make this decision by the God of the Judaeans himself, the Achaemenid king orders: “Who is there among you of all his people and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judaea, and build the house of the God of Israel.” To this point these are the words of the sovereign, but the text continues (I:5): “Then rose up the chiefs of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Lévites, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.” Although in exile the Judaean people had always maintained their own internal organization, nevertheless in the eyes of Cyrus this is not what characterizes them. In his view anyone who obeys the rules of worship of the God who will be honoured in that Temple should return to Jerusalem and reconstruct it. Reference is clearly made to a similar concept both in the decree of Antiochus III, already quoted above, which restores to the Jews the freedom to live according to their traditions (Ant., 12:142) and the series of provisions issued under Caesar in favour of the ethnos, which abo aimed at renewing the recognition of a right of the same kind (in fact in his introduction to the text of these documents, Flavius Josephus says that he wishes to bear witness to all the honours that the Romans and their imperatores had paid to the (Judaean) nation, and the bonds of mutual assistance which they had made (Ant., 14:186).

It should also be emphasized that not only those Jews living in Palestine belong to the ethnos, but also those living outside its bounds and belonging to other juridically organized communities. Thus Flavius Josephus refers to the ethnos of Cyrene (Ant., 14:114) and to the ethnos of Egypt (Ant., 14:118), while Strabo (quoted in Ant., 14:118) talks of the Ethnarch of the Jews in Egypt as “he who resolves controversies and takes care of contracts and ordinances as would the sovereign of an independent State”.

11 As to effectiveness at a practical level, for reasons that we have attempted to elucidate above, our opinion is somewhat distant from that of Sordi. Taking up the theory of Taubler that Judah had very probably died before the ambassadors of the Judaeans had returned from Rome and basing herself on the fact that, after the death of Judah, the rebels withdrew for some time into the desert, the author (cf. Sordi, , “Il valore politico del trattato tra i Romani e i Giudei nel 161 a.C.” (1952) 5 Acme 3)Google Scholar puts forwards the theory that “on the Judaean side nobody had pressed for the fulfilment of the treaty” and that if in practice the treaty remained a dead letter “this was not through the fault of the Romans, but.through the force of necessity”. We have seen on the contrary how much diplomatic skill was used in drawing up the treaty, a skill which was greater in the case of Judah than in the case of Timarchus. On the practical level the intended aim was the same in both cases: to feed internal discords in the heart of the Seleucidan empire so as to justify an ever more direct intervention in eastern affairs and, to this end, use all means to obstruct Demetrius. In the light of these facts it seems very difficult to accept, as Sordi would have us do, the idea of Rome as the upholder of the autonomy of small States, and it seems equally difficult to believe that even contemporaries could have shared this opinion. Really, reading the “dithyrambing eulogy” of the Romans brings to mind a question whose answer could lead to a very different conclusion: is this really the opinion of the Judaeans or is it rather information whose circulation had been cleverly arranged by the Romans?

The more one studies the Talmudic sources which, as we mentioned above, do not yet seem to have been the object of attention for students of the period, the more this doubt seems well founded.

In Avodah Zarah 8b some information is provided (even if it is not always easy to understand if it is chronologically exact) which is extremely useful in throwing light on the Judaeans' real opinion of Rome: “The Romans fought thirty two battles against the Greeks but could not prevail over them until they had made an alliance with Israel”. Though on the one hand it may appear ingenuous, this leaves no doubt as to the real intentions of Rome. The terms of the treaty, still according to the text, were the following: “if the kings are chosen from amongst us, the princes will be chosen from amongst you, and if the kings are chosen from amongst you, the princes will come from our ranks”, which leads one to think of a treaty of mutual recognition close in some ways to the form of a joedus aequum. “For twenty six years, i.e. a hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple”, the text concludes, “the Romans kept faith with Israel after which they subdued her”. For greater completeness one may also quote the passage from Shabbath 15a: “one hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked State extended its power over Israel”.

Only rarely do the rabbinic sources offer such explicit and consistent information. In the light of this, the theory that the Judaeans harboured such a favourable opinion of the Romans loses all foundation and, at the very least, it is necessary to restrict the period. In fact it may be maintained that their opinion was such at the beginning, i.e., when Judah and his party, needing support in order to shake off the Seleucidan yoke, gave credence to the reports which were probably spread by the Romans themselves, aiming first of all to exalt the Roman power, to emphasize their faithfulness in alliances and lastly to contrast their democratic organization, the protector of the citizens' interests, with the despotic organization of the kingdoms. All this aimed to give the Judaeans, as to all the peoples whom they wanted to subject to their sovereignty, the illusion that only in Rome could they find a true support for their aspirations to liberty.

12 To find an earlier example of such a combination of both functions, the sources have to go back to Melchissedec (whose name is of Canaanite derivation however), the priest and king of Salem who, according to biblical tradition, went out to meet Abraham after his victory over Kedor-Laomer and blessed him (Gen. 14:18).

This is therefore a new development and, since it produced a considerable effect in legal terms, it will be as well to focus our attention on it. It is enough to look through those sources mentioned earlier which have not been accepted into the Jewish canon to gain a clear impression of this new figure. There are two dominant ideas to be found in them: affirmation of the necessity to set up a “new priesthood”, no longer following the lineage of Aaron but that of Levi; the new priest must, of necessity, be also the warrior prince of the Judaean people. Thus the Testament of Levi (8:14) announces that the descendants of Levi will be divided up into three offices, of which the second will be the priesthood and the third will have an entirely new name, “because a king shall arise in Judah, and shall establish a new priesthood, after the fashion of the Gentiles”. Later on (8:17) the text proceeds: “and some of them shall be high priests, and judges and scribes”.

Lastly, Test. Levi 18 further specifies: “Then shall the Lord raise up a new priest; and to him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed; and he shall execute a righteous judgment upon the earth for a multitude of days; and his star shall arise in heaven as of a king … and the glory of the Most High God shall be uttered over him … and there shall none succeed him for all generations for ever”, (that is, the office is entrusted to him and to his descendants, as stated also in Psalm 110 and in I Mace, 14:41). As for the Testament of Reuben 6:7–12, here too one finds the same concept, common to all the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, that the Messiah will be first of all a priest, then a prophet and a king: “I command you to hearken to Levi, because he shall know the law of the Lord, and shall give ordinances for judgment and shall sacrifice for all Israel until the consummation of the times, as the anointed High Priest of whom the Lord spake … because him hath the Lord chosen to be king over all the nation”. Furthermore the author of Psalm 110 looks forward to the coming of a Messiah who will be “priest for ever after the order of Melchissedec”.

Lastly the Talmud itself, as proof of this conception, which must have been very widespread, attests that “when the government of the Hasmonaeans became strong and defeated him, they ordered that the Name of God be mentioned in contracts, and they used to write thus: “In the year… of Yohanan, high priest of the Most High God” (Rash Hashanah, 18b).

Amongst Jews as amongst Christians (the Bible in fact states that Christ was a priest according to the order of Melchissedec) there has been much discussion as to the figure of this king of justice, to translate the name literally. This attribute of king of justice (Melek zedeq) is especially emphasized in certain texts which have recently been found at the Dead Sea. In one of these, which we prefer to quote extensively considering the great interest which it holds from a legal viewpoint, Melchissedec is pictured as “the indicator of the decisions of God, as he who beseeches pardon for the exiles so that, having obtained it, they may be free” (cf. Woude, Van der, “Melchissedec als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle 11” (1965) 14 Oudtestamentische Studien 354–375).Google Scholar From the scroll from Cave I which also refers to Melchissedec, cf. Yadin, Avigad, A Genesis Apocryphon, A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem, 1956)Google Scholar; Kutscher, , “Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon” (1957) 76 Journal of Biblical Literature, 288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar and The Language in the Genesis Apocryphon (Jerusalem, 1957); Lehmann, , “I Q Genesis Apocryphon in the Light of the Targumim and Midrashim” (1958) 1 Revue de Qumrân, 247–263Google Scholar; Fitzmeyer, , “Further Light in Melchissedec from Qumran Cave II” (1967) 86 Journal of Biblical Literature 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

His figure may be compared only with that of Simon bar Kosba who, centuries later, was to repeat the deeds of the Maccabee brothers rebelling against the Romans. However, while Simon Maccabee is the sar “am” El, the ēgoumenos, the elected leader “until a prophet shall arise worthy of faith”, Simon bar Kosba, as is witnessed by the documents recently brought to light in the Desert of Judaea (cf. Benoit, Milik, de Vaux, Discoveries in the Judaeam Desert, II. Les Grottes de Murabba'at (Oxford, 1961)) is the Nasi of Israel, the eschatolo-gical leader of the people, he who seems to realize the Messianic ideal which had been conceived from the times of Simon the Hasmonaean (cf. Mur. 24). Similarly, the editor of the texts coming from the Dead Sea notes “Tout en restant bien un titre de fonction civile et militaire, l'expression [i.e. Nasi] ne perd pas sa note théologique de Messie guerrier”.

Furthermore Milikr commenting on the contents of a letter of Simon (cf. Milik, , “Une lettre de Simeon bar Kokheba” (1953) 60 Revue Biblique, 290–292)Google Scholar had already observed that Simon's title of Nasi of Israel “est égal à nasi, chef eschatologique du peuple et un Davidide d'Ezéchiel”.

The reason why neither Simon Maccabaeus nor Simon bar Kosba ever claimed or obtained the title of king (melekh) seems clear: both had struggled to bring Israel back to its purest traditions. It would therefore have been almost a contradiction for either of them to have obstructed this process, even indirectly, by claiming for himself a title which seemed to be at variance with this process.

13 It seems that the struggle of the Maccabees to establish a just administration soon won official recognition. In a letter from Demetrius to the people of Judaea (I Macc. 10, 37–38) the sovereign allows the Judaeans to have chiefs and magistrates chosen from amongst their number. Furthermore, and this is another sign of the Roman presence, Lucius, the Roman consul, with a letter to Ptolemy Euergetes (I Macc. 15:21) lays down that: “If therefore, any pestilent fellows should have fled from their country unto you, deliver them unto Simon the high-priest, that he may take vengeance on them according to their law”. However, it is not clear exactly how important this provision was. It undoubtedly attests to the Romans' recognition of the stability achieved by the power of Simon.

We must not forget that, though Judah had obtained a treaty of alliance, this did not provide for the recognition either of his person or of the government which he had created and still less did it define the limits of the power of the new leader of the ethnos of the Judaeans; and when Jonathan succeeded Judah, he received nothing more than the mere confirmation of the previous treaty. It is also clear that in ancient times the right to have fugitives extradited as well as the right to have prisoners of war freed must be considered as the clear expression of the sovereignty of the person or people who exercised it. Flavius Josephus, talking of the power of the Pharisees under Alexandra, observes for example that, while in theory she held the title of sovereign, in fact the Pharisees exercised the rights associated with this office: they called back exiles, freed prisoners and generally differed in no way from absolute governors (Ant., 13:409). When the historian talks of Herod (Bellum, 1:474), he affirms that his sphere of influence was so wide as to extend even to those outside the territories subject to his jurisdiction. As the result of a prerogative which had been granted to him by way of exception, and not to the other sovereigns, Herod in fact enjoyed the privilege of calling back fugitives even from territories not subject to him. However, none of the sources allows us any certainty as to the way in which the Maccabees fulfilled in practice the aforesaid functions and, specially important amongs these, the judicial function.

Our only help on this subject is the Talmud which preserves a decision of the Bet Din shel Hashmonaim which seems extremely interesting. The passages of Sanhedrin 82a and Avodah Zarah 36b shows us this tribunal as it judges that a pagan woman, who has had relations with a Jewish man, is to be considered impure (niddah). All the same, however, strange it may seem, this tribunal did not intervene in order to pass judgment on the system to be used to purify the altar profaned by the Seleucids nor on the stones used in building it. Both of these were questions of some importance as their solution involved serious political and religious consequences. The passages in Avodah Zarah 52b and Middot I, 6 in fact agree with each other in reporting that the Hasmonaeans deposited in the north-eastern room of the Temple the stones that the kings of Greece had profaned, a version which moreover corresponds exactly with that handed down by I Macc., 4:44. According to this source Judah chose priests who were pure and observant of the law, and these purified the Sanctuary and banished the stones to an impure place.

They consulted together about what was to be done with the altar of the burnt offerings, which had been profaned, and they came to the decision to destroy it since the pagans had made use of it. They demolished it, the text continues, and deposited the stones on the mountain of the Temple, in a suitable place waiting for a prophet to declare the correct course of action. The resemblance to the Talmudic account becomes very clear at this point. In the absence of other information which could help us, the problem of judicial activity under the Hasmonaeans (which is of interest here because it is closely connected with that of the degree of autonomy reached by the Judaeans in this period) thus remains open.

14 Cf. Ricciotti, op. cit., supra n. 3, at 56.

15 Cf. Albright, , Sellers, , “The First Campaign of Excavations at Beth-Zur” (1931) 58 Bull. Am. School of Or. Res. 2–13Google Scholar; Kanael, , “The Beginning of Maccabaean Coinage” (1950–1951) 1 Israel Exploration J. 171–174Google Scholar; Kanael, , “The Historical Background of the Coins ‘Year Four … of the Redemption of Israel’” (1953) 79 Bull Am. School of Or. Res. 20.Google Scholar

16 No comment could be more eloquent than that of Josephus, , Ant., 14:77Google Scholar: “For this misfortune which befell Jerusalem Hyrcanus and Aristobulus were responsible, because of their dissension. For we lost our freedom and became subject to the Romans, and the territory which we had gained by our arms and taken from the Syrians we were compelled to give back to them, and in addition the Romans exacted of us in a short space of time more than ten thousand talents; and the royal power which had formerly been bestowed on those who were high priests by birth became the privilege of commoners.” Furthermore, the historian hints that this would be the case of Herod, and we must take account of the value of this allusion, made at this point in the narration. It is clear that Flavius Josephus had no doubt as to the fact that, from the time when Pompey took Jerusalem, the Judaeans had no power to exert a direct influence, not just on the form of government but even on the choice of those who would be put in charge of the government. There is equally no doubt that he saw this as being the worst of all the consequences of defeat.

In any case, should the opinion of Josephus be considered insufficient, we are helped by the testimony of several other accounts (cf. Cicero, , pro Fiacco, 5, 28, 69Google Scholar; Livy, , Per., 10Google Scholar; Eusebius, Praep. Evang., Book VIII, in S. Eus. Hier., Commentaria in Danielem, chap. IX, in Migne, P.L., XXIV, pp. 544–545; Jerome, , Comment, in Ezechielem, Book XIV, chap. XVIII, in Migne, P.L., XXV, pp. 51–52Google Scholar; Orosius, (Historiarum advenus paganos, 6, 1)Google Scholar; Eutropius (6, 14, 2); Chronicon Paschale (ed. Niebur, , p. 351).Google Scholar

Nor is this list complete without a reference to the Talmudic sources which we have already quoted when speaking of the first treaty drawn up between Rome and Judas Maccabaeus, and in particular to Auodah Zar ah 8a–8b which we have already had occasion to mention and of which the following passages are now of interest: “For R. Jose b. Rabbi taught: Persian rule lasted 34 years after the building of the Temple, the Hasmonaean rule lasted 103 years during Temple times, the House of Herod ruled 103 years. Thence onward, we should go on counting the years as from the Destruction of the Temple. Hence we see that it was 206 years, yet you say 180 years! But for 26 years the Romans kept faith with Israel and did not subdue them, and therefore those years are not reckoned in the period during which Rome cast her dominion over Israel.” “Whence can it be proved that Rome kept faith with Israel for 26 years? (From the following): For Rabbi Kahana said: When R. Ishmael b. Jose was ill they sent word to him: Rabbi, tell us the two or three things which thou hadst told us in thy father's name. He then told them: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed did Rome cast her rule over Israel; eighty years before the destruction of the Temple it was decreed that neighbouring countries of Palestine were to be regarded as ritually unclean, and likewise all glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed did the Sanhedrin abandon (the Temple) and held its sitting in Hanuth.”

17 Livy's account of the new order in Macedonia after the victory of Pydna is extremely valuable for anyone wishing to take full account of Rome's political ability with regard to subject peoples: “First of all it was voted that the Macedonians and Ulyrians should be given their independence, so that it should be clear to all nations that the forces of the Roman people brought not slavery to free peoples, but on the contrary, freedom to the enslaved. The Senate wished nations which were free to consider that their freedom was assured and lasting under the protection of the Roman People, and that those who lived under kings should feel for the time being that their rulers were milder and more just under the eye of the Roman people, and, if at any time their kings should make war on the Roman people, that the outcome of war would be victory to the Romans, but freedom to themselves.” It was also voted to discontinue the leasing of the Macedonian mines, a source of immense revenue, and of rural estates, for these could not be farmed without a contract, and where there was a contractor, then either the ownership by the State lapsed, or no freedom was left to the allied people. It was impossible, the Senate thought, for even the Macedonians to farm these resources; for where there was booty as a prize for administrators, in that State there would never be a lack of reasons for conspiracies and strife. Finally, fearing that if there were a common legislature for the nation, some relentless demagogue would turn the freedom given in healthy moderation into licence which brings ruin, the Senate voted to divide Macedonia into four sections, so that each might have its own legislature. It was further resolved that Macedonia should pay to the Roman People half the taxes which they had been accustomed to pay to their kings. Like instructions were given for Illyricum. The details were left to the generals and the commissioners themselves, for which the present discussion would lay a sure foundation of planning” (Livius 45, 18, 10, ed., A.C. Schlesinger).

Nonetheless the Macedonians very soon became aware that the freedom which had been granted to them by the generosity of Rome had no real existence (Livius 45, 30): “The announcement of these arrangements on the first day of the gathering aroused mixed emotions. The unexpected grant of freedom cheered men, as well as the lightening of the annual taxation; but to those who were cut off from trading between regions, their country seemed as mangled as an animal disjointed into parts, each of which needed the other; so unaware were the Macedonians themselves of the size of Macedonia, of how it lent itself to division, and how self-sufficient every part was.”

We have mentioned Macedonia because the situation of this country has much in common with that of Syria (whose empire, as is well known, included Judaea). There must clearly have been several cases in which Rome preferred to set up a transitional order, inevitably followed however by full annexation, an annexation which had been planned right from the very moment of conquest (for Ciucia, Coele Syria and Phoenicia cf. Appian, Syr., 50).

Judaea is thus one of these cases. The corresponding passsages of Ant., 14:90–91 and of Bellum, 1:167–171 tell us: “Gabinius… brought Hyrcanus to Jerusalem, to have charge of the temple. He also set up five councils, and divided the nation into as many districts; these centres of government were: first, Jerusalem, next, Gadara, third, Amathus, fourth, Jericho, and fifth, Sepphoris in Galilee. And so the people were removed from monarchic rule and lived under an aristocracy.” We may therefore infer that in Macedonia, as in Judaea, the first concern of the conqueror was to dismember the country. Livy (cf., 45, 18, 1) meets no difficulty is showing up the true motive when he refers to the principles which had inspired the Roman Senate in setting up the new order: had the Senate left Macedonia united, any rebellion would have been able to spread much more easily and this was the last thing which Rome wanted. Flavius Josephus, who is more partial, insists on the aspect of the restoration of the aristocratic form which he sees as being positive while he skates over the other side of the question: nothing is left to Hyrcanus, who in the role of ethnarch and not of king could still have held the government of the Judaeans, but the mere administration of the Temple. The aim, as in the previous case, is still that of preventing anyone from taking the initiative of open rebellion, helped by an unified organization.

However the problems which faced Rome in Judaea were undoubtedly more complex (we have seen from the account of Appian how much resistance was offered by the people) because of the attachment to ancestral traditions which, as we have seen, had led the small Judaean community to break away from the Seleucidan empire, to create an autonomous State and in the end to pass under the yoke of another power. Its appreciation of the importance of this attachment constitutes another proof of Roman long-sightedness, and one must take account of this if one wishes to catch the full meaning of the measures adopted with regard to the Judaean people. Judaea could have been annexed at once to the province of Syria. However Rome understood immediately that a too emphatic interference in the sphere of internal organization could have been understood as an attack on the freedom to observe ancestral traditions which had been so fiercely defended. This could have given rise to continual disorders. To eliminate this possibility there was no other way than that chosen: to leave the situation unchanged in appearance, even re-inforcing the office of high priest held by Hyrcanus, while exerting a continuous control over the subject people.

¹⁸ Servientium regum, umbra regis are the terms with which Tacitus (Hist., 2:81; Ann., 15:6) describes this kind of “sovereign”. Put at the head of those people who, because of a different level of civilization or because of different customs, Rome did not feel it opportune to rule directly straight away, the task of the reges socii was precisely to favour their rapid insertion into Roman provincial administration. A passage of Tacitus seems exceptionally indicative as to the function which they were expected to fulfil. Talking of Britannia, the historian (Agricola, 14) reports that a part of this region was reduced little by little to the state of province. There was also founded a colony of veterans. Furthermore “quaedam civitates Cogidumno regi donatae (is ad nostrum usque memoriam fidissimus mansit) vetere ac iam pridem recepta populi romani consuetudine, ut haberet instrumenta servitutis et reges”.

Nor is this the only example. Strabo (Geog., 17:3, 15), talking of the governent of Africa after the destruction of Carthage attests that a part of the territory was immediately reduced to the state of province, while another was entrusted to Massinissa. The latter was held in great esteem by the Romans for his courage and his loyalty; it was he in fact who transformed the nomads into citizens and cultivators and taught them to be soldiers instead of brigands: “As for the country, the Romans proclaimed one part of it a province, I mean the part which had been subject to the Carthaginians, and appointed as sovereign of the other part Massinissa, as also his descendants, the house of Micipsa; for Massinissa was held in very high respect among the Romans because of his valour and friendship; and indeed it was he who transformed the nomads into citizens and farmers, and taught them to be soldiers instead of brigands”. (Strabo, 17:3, 15, ed. H. Jones).

Moreover Augustus himself (Mon. Ancyr., 27) does not hesitate to recognize this as a constant policy with respect to newly acquired territories. Referring to Armenia he says that, after the assassination of its king Artaxia, he could have made it a province directly but that, respecting the Roman tradition, he had entrusted this kingdom to Tigrane. The kings “allied” to Rome are always persons on whom Rome can count to put into practice its plan for final annexation.

We have seen how Strabo describes the figure of Massinissa. For our enquiry the picture which the same author gives of Herod, (Geog., 16:2, 46Google Scholar) seems even more interesting. In fact, talking of him Strabo immediately shows up his gifts as a good administrator of the affairs of the government and the skill he demonstrated in keeping up good relations with Rome; together these gifts earned him the conferment of the title of king. Herod, for his part, only proclaims himself philokaisaros (CIG, III, 551) and philoromaios (CIG, III, 550). Nonetheless, from the point of view of the Roman legal order he like the others is to be counted in the category of the basileis de upēkooi (Plut., Ant., 61:2). Furthermore the threat made by Augustus, when Herod undertook a war which he had not authorized, to treat him no longer as a friend, philos, but as a subject upēkoos (Ant., 16:290) is famous. Recently Hahn, “Herodes als Prokurator” in (1968) 2 Neue Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Alten Welt 25–44Google Scholar who has devoted a long study to the different offices assumed by Herod before and after his elevation to the throne, has shown how in this, “king” should be seen above all as an official of the Roman provincial administration.

For the more recent bibliography on the reign of Herod cf. Allon, , The Attitude of the Pharisees to the Roman Government and the House of Herod, “Scripta Hyerosolymitana” VII (1961) 53–78Google Scholar; Wirgin, , “On King Herod's Mes-sianism” (1961) 11 Israel Exploration Journal 151–154Google Scholar; Gross, , Herod the Great (Baltimore, 1962)Google Scholar; Harder, , “Herod: Burgen und Herodes-Städte im Jordangrabe” (1962) 78 Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina Vereins 49–63Google Scholar; Schalit, , King Herod, Portrait of a Ruler (Jerusalem, 1962, in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Zeitlin, , “Herod” (1963/1964) 54 Jewish Quarterly Review, 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hahn, , “Herodes provincialis szolgalata” (1965) 10 Bibl. Class. Orient. 239Google Scholar; Filmer, , “The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great” (1966) 17 Journal of Theological Studies 283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bammel, , “Die Rechtsstellung des Herodes” (1968) 84 Zeitschrift d. deutschen Pal. Ver. 73–79.Google Scholar