Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC–AD 70 9781474266321, 9781474230520, 9780567162113

Citation preview

library of new testament studies

POWER AND POLITICS IN PALESTINE The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC–AD 70

JAMES S. McLAREN

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

63

Executive Editor David Hill

JSOT Press Sheffield

POWER AND POLITICS IN PALESTINE The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC-AD 70

James S. McLaren

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 63

For Mary-Rose

Copyright © 1991 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data McLaren, James S. Power & politics in Palestine: the Jews and the governing of their Land, 100BC-AD70.(JSNT supplements, 0143-5108; 63). I. Title II. Series 933.05 EISBN 9781850753193

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

7 8

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1. 2. 3.

Survey of Main Scholarship Outline of the Approach Taken in this Study Comments regarding the Sources Used

Chapter 2 HASMONAEAN RULE: 100 BC-40 BC 1. Trouble under Alexander Jannaeus 2. Affairs of State under Salome Alexandra 3. The Trial of Herod

9

10 28 34

54 54 60 67

Chapter 3 DIRECT ROMAN RULE: AD 6-41 1. Samaritan Intrusion into the Temple 2. Two Protests under Pilate's Prefectship 3. The Trial of Jesus 4. First Hearing against Peter and John 5. Second Hearing against Peter and John 6. The Trial of Stephen 7. The Statue of Gaius

80 80 81 88 102 105 109 114

Chapter 4 THE RETURN OF DIRECT ROMAN RULE: AD 44-65 1. Petition over the High Priests' Robes 2. Dispute between Galilaeans and Samaritans 3. The Trial of Paul 4. Petition regarding the Temple Wall

127 127 131 139 145

6

Power and Politics in Palenstine 5. 6.

Chapter 5

The Trial of James and Several Other Men The Influence of Ananias

148 155

66-70 Trouble between the Jews and Greeks in Caesarea Floras in Jerusalem Cessation of Sacrifices Offered for Foreigners Events in Jerusalem during the Revolt Revolt of Tiberias against Josephus

158 158 160 169 172 184

OPEN REBELLION AGAINST ROME: A D

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Chapter 6

SYNTHESIS

188

CONCLUSION

223

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

226 235 242

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people whose guidance, example and expertise have been important in the writing of this book, the text of which was originally submitted for a doctorate at the University of Oxford in Hilary Term, 1990.1 had the privilege of working under the auspices of Professor Ed Sanders and Dr Martin Goodman. Ed was instrumental in guiding my research, giving direction, criticism and encouragement when necessary. I benefitted greatly from his support, generosity and enthusiasm for the subject. Martin was also generous in offering focus and direction in the latter stages of my research. My thanks are due also to Professor Fergus Millar and Dr Philip Davies, who examined the thesis and offered encouragement and suggestions regarding the work. I take this opportunity to mention also Mr Ron Ridley who encouraged me to pursue my interest in this period of history as an undergraduate and graduate at the University of Melbourne. Dr Geoff Jenkins kindly undertook to read the first section of the manuscript, for which I am grateful. Naturally, I take full responsibility for any omissions or errors of judgment that may remain in the work. During my time in Oxford I had the good fortune to be a member of Pembroke College. I am grateful for the friends I made there, for the pleasant setting it provided, and for the financial assistance the College offered. I also wish to thank the staff at Sheffield Academic Press, and especially Andrew Kirk, for the assistance they have provided in the publication of the book. Their speed and efficiency have been greatly appreciated. I am especially aware of the numerous occasions when my family, in particular my mother, have provided support and encouragement; to them my thanks. Finally, and undoubtedly, the person to whom I am most grateful is my wife. Few words could express how much I have depended on her love and support—to her I dedicate this book with my deepest gratitude.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB Ant. Apion

b. BARev

Bib BTB CBQ CCER

CQ CRIANT

HTR HUCA

IBS IEJ JBL JES JJS JQR JR JRA JRS JSJ JSS JTS Leg. Gai. Life

m. NovT

NTS SBL SBT War ZNW

Anchor Bible Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Josephus, Against Apion Babylonian Talmud Biblical Archaeology Review Biblica Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cahiers du Cercle Ernest Renan Classical Quarterly Compendium Rerum Iudicarum ad Novum Testamentum Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Irish Biblical Studies Israel Exploration Journal Journal ofBiblical Literature Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Philo, Legatio ad Gaium Josephus, Life of Josephus Mishnah Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Theology Josephus, The Jewish War Zeitschriftfiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft unddie Kunde des Urchristentums

Certain specific terms in the text that have been translated are accompanied by the original Greek the first time they appear in each section.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

There has been a long-standing scholarly interest in the political and social organization of Palestine in the first centuries BC and AD. In Jewish circles this examination has focused on the underlying reasons for the AD 66-70 revolt. From the Christian perspective, interest has centred on the question of who was responsible for the death of Jesus. The few classical scholars who discuss the events in Palestine do so because the extant narratives provide one of the most detailed accounts of a Roman province in the first century AD. These, and other underlying concerns, have resulted in a large amount of general discussion of the administration with some detailed investigation of a few specific issues. In this study the emphasis does not fall exclusively on any one of the three branches of scholarship. It is a historical examination of the administration and differs from previous work in two aspects: what it seeks to establish and the approach that will be taken. In a broad sense this study seeks to determine the extent to which the Jews were selfgoverning. It examines which people and/or institutions are recorded as actually making decisions for the Jewish community. The majority of the study focuses on detailed case studies of incidents recorded in the sources. On the basis of observations drawn from these case studies we shall be in a position to assess who held authority in Palestine and how this authority was used in decision-making and understood by the Jews. The following analysis of the main scholarly approaches to the administration in Palestine displays the ways in which these have often rested on theoretical ideas of government rather than on a close examination of the contemporary sources. I will then outline the approach used in this study, highlighting the ways in which it differs from previous works. The final section of this introduction is devoted

10

Power and Politics in Palestine

to several comments regarding the nature of the sources being used. 1. Survey of Main Scholarship Despite interest in the functioning of the administration, a survey of present scholarship indicates that there has yet to be a comprehensive assessment of which Jews participated in administration and the extent to which they were able to do so. Furthermore, although scholars rely on the same source material,they reach extremely diverse conclusions. Interest in administrative affairs in Palestine has been incorporated into three distinct types of work: studies specifically devoted to the issue of self-government; works by scholars in which observations regarding the administration are made within the context of another interest; and studies that address in detail one particular aspect of the administration in Palestine. An assessment of these works indicates the concentration of thought on formal institutions of power. It also highlights the need for a study that seeks to establish who actually held power as opposed to who should have held power or who it is believed should have done so. Three scholars, S. Safrai, Z.W. Falk and E. Schiirer, have specifically addressed the issue of Jewish self-government between 100 BC and AD 70. It is notable that not one of these scholars devotes more than a section of a large introductory text on the Second Temple period as a whole to the administration. Safrai claims that the Jews held a 'considerable degree of autonomy' throughout the first centuries BC and AD.1 The main instruments through which this autonomy was expressed were the office of high priest and the sanhedrin. They remained separate institutions, with the latter playing the greater role. At the beginning of the Second Temple period a national assembly was the most important element in the government. In time this function was taken over by the sanhedrin, which was also known as the boule and gerousia. These different titles reflected the changing status of the sanhedrin throughout the period. There was, however, only one council in existence at any point in time during the Second Temple period. 1. S. Safrai * Jewish Self-Government', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, I (CRIANT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), pp. 377-419.

1. Introduction

11

On the assumption that all source material is of equal relevance, Safrai proceeds to outline what he considers to be the powers and areas of jurisdiction of the sanhedrin, the 'principal element of government'. Here Safrai is largely dependent on tannaitic literature. The sanhedrin was Jerusalem's city council and the legislative, judicial and executive authority for all Jews in Palestine. It was also the central place for the study of Torah, and it supervised the national religion and acted as the supreme authority in all disputes regarding Torah. Although some legislative duties were delegated to courts of seven and three, capital cases were judged by the sanhedrin. The right to inflict capital punishment was removed at some stage before AD 70 but Safrai makes no attempt to suggest when this might have happened. The high priest and the leading Pharisaic sage shared the leadership of the sanhedrin, whose members were appointed for life. Claiming a distinction between political and religious matters, Safrai states that the high priest ruled over the former while the leading sage presided over religious affairs. He concludes by stating that the power of the sanhedrin was dependent on its relationship with the Romans in the first century AD. Whenever a disruption to public order threatened, the Romans intervened, thus restricting the extent of Jewish autonomy. Three brief comments need to be made regarding Safrai's contribution. First, he assumes that whatever power the Jews had was connected with particular formal institutions. In part this may be the result of separating discussion of the historical surroundings from that of Jewish self-government. Secondly, despite the fact that Safrai argues for equality amongst the sources, he relies almost entirely on tannaitic literature. Thirdly, he assumes a distinction between political and religious affairs. It is notable, however, that no examples are given to indicate what came under which heading. In effect, by limiting the discussion primarily to the sanhedrin and relying almost entirely on tannaitic literature for the description of it, Safrai presents a generalized outline of what should, according to one source, have been the instrument of Jewish administration. Although primarily interested in describing the Jewish legal system of the Second Temple period, Z.W. Falk1 devotes a specific chapter to 1. Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth, Part 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1972).

12

Power and Politics in Palestine

discussing the Jewish elements of government. In a similar way to Safrai, Falk begins from the premise that all available sources are equally relevant to a discussion of Jewish self-government. Three aspects of the administration are of interest to Falk: the high priesthood; the council at Jerusalem; and the local level of administration. Falk states that Pompey designated the high priest as the official Jewish leader, responsible to the Romans for the maintenance of law and order. When Judaea became a Roman province this practice was re-instituted. Most of Falk's interest lies in a discussion of the second aspect, the council in Jerusalem. Early in the Second Temple period the council was called gerousia. At the end of the Hasmonaean period the council became known as the sanhedrin. What role this institution played in the administration was entirely dependent on its relations with the existing head of state. For example, early in the Hasmonaean period the sanhedrin was an advisory body, dealing with public affairs. Under Herod, however, the original sanhedrin was not involved in state matters. Rather, the king sought advice from a personal council. Falk states that the leadership of the sanhedrin was shared by the serving high priest and the leading sage. This claim is justified by accepting the notion that there was a distinction maintained between religious and political matters from the time of Alexander Jannaeus. The leading sage presided over religious issues while the high priest chaired meetings that pertained to political affairs. The reign of Alexander Jannaeus also marked the beginning of a special Pharisaic council. Unfortunately Falk does not indicate the relative functions fulfilled by the sanhedrin and the Pharisaic council in the administration, although he does suggest that Herod restricted the sanhedrin's role to the extent that it became primarily an 'institution of religious instruction'. The third aspect of the administration that Falk discusses pertains to local affairs, the town councils and rulers. Although Falk draws almost entirely on Old Testament source material he appears to imply that it reflects the situation until AD 70. In each town there was a 'plenary assembly'. Above this assembly stood the district council of elders, which dealt with minor legal cases. All important cases were referred to one of the three small sanhedrins or the sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Although Falk seeks to place the material contained in the tannaitic

1. Introduction

13

literature within a plausible historical setting, it is notable that he fails to provide many examples of how the constitution actually functioned. Furthermore, despite his statement that all the source material is historically relevant and several references to Josephus, there is a strong reliance on tannaitic literature for his information. The third work addressing the issue of Jewish self-government is the revised edition of Schiirer.1 On the local level, reference is made to the existence of town councils, and, in larger towns, to courts of twenty-three. Much attention is paid to the sanhednn which allegedly functioned in Jerusalem. It is suggested that this institution was responsible for the collection of taxes throughout the Jewish region of Palestine. It is also described as holding de facto authority in terms of Jewish law. During the first century AD the sanhedrin's area of control only incorporated Judaea and when Palestine became a Roman province the idea of 'political unity' became inappropriate. There was only ever one sanhedrin in existence in Jerusalem at any given point in time. Throughout its lifetime, probably from the fourth century BC to AD 70, this council had a number of titles, including gerousia and sanhedrin. The large number of cases that had to be dealt with, however, probably indicates that other courts operated under the supervision of the sanhedrin. According to Schiirer it was the high priest alone who presided over the sanhedrin. The references in the tannaitic literature to the nasi as leader are viewed as being historically inaccurate. Although it is acknowledged that the extent of the sanhedrin's power depended on the Romans' decisions, Schiirer concludes by claiming that the sanhedrin held a 'high degree of autonomy'. Civil jurisdiction in Jewish law and criminal law came under its control. The sanhedrin was also empowered to arrest people but it was probably not able to inflict the death penalty.2 1. E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (2 vols.; rev. trans. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, I, 1973, II, 1979). 2. There is also some discussion of the meaning of the term 'chief priests' (oi dpx'epeiT