1. INTRODUCTION
The thesis of the paper can be summed up as the analysis of factors behind Jewish uprising in AD 66-70. However, unlike previous studies which suggested economic, religious, political and military as the factors behind the Revolt; the paper intends to suggest another possibility which is “corruption.” Thus, it endeavors to investigate the nexus between the Roman State and the Jewish religious authorities[1] during the first century AD (ca. 6 – 66) from a socio – historical perspective. The intention of the paper is to first highlight the Roman administrative system followed by a brief discussion on the Jewish administration and its meeting with the Roman administration. Then, it goes on to discuss the impacts of the collaboration between the two administrations, and concludes with the analysis of factors leading to the First Jewish Revolt. But, before that, the paper will briefly define the term “corruption.”
2. WHAT IS CORRUPTION?
Oxford Dictionary defines corruption as, “dishonest or illegal behavior, especially of people in authority, the act or effect of making something change from moral to immoral standards of behavior.”[2] In other words, it is the misuse of “public power for obtaining benefits and advantages to self or to his/her associate in various forms.”[3] Thus, “it goes beyond bribery” asserts Paul. [4] It also includes, as Nye suggests, “behavior” such as “bribery,” “nepotism,” and “misappropriation.”[5] Therefore, the concern is not only fiscal, but goes beyond that.[6] Samuel Paul mentions 3 types of corruption: (i) Collusive corruption which means “the planned cooperation of the giver and taker,” (ii) Extortionary corruption, forcible extractions of money from the subjected people, and (iii) Anticipatory corruption in which gift is presented to the authority with the “anticipation of favorable actions or decisions” (bribery).[7] Keeping these definitions in mind, the paper will try to uncover the Roman-Jewish practice of corruption which gave rise to the Revolt in AD 66.
3. THE ROMAN IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION: AN OVERVIEW
The Roman administration can be characterized as an aristocratic empire in which the Emperor acts as “an aristocrat whose word was law and whose relationship with his subjects was highly personalized.”[8] Below him were the senatorial (State Council), the equestrian and the local ruling elites. Horrell describes this hierarchy as a “large pyramid” in which 1 % of the total population ruled the empire.[9] Carter classified these ruling groups as the “elites” while the rest belonged to the “non-elites.”[10] Hence, “there was no middle class” but the elites and the non – elites.[11]
As agrarian Empire, “the wealth and power of the Roman imperial elite was based more in land than in trade and industry.”[12] Land was the “safest investment” from which most of the elites’ profits were “derived.”[13] While most of the land productions came from rural areas, they were brought to the city to be consumed by the elites. It is estimated that 65% of the land production was shared by the ruling elites of 2-3% of the total population.[14] Besides, the populace was divided into “citizens” and “noncitizens,” and the word often uttered by the Roman citizens was Civis Romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen”) in order for him to get “protections and rights.”[15]
The Romans also established many provinces which according to Garnsey and Saller was more than 40 provinces.[16] The larger provinces were governed by a “Governor” (a commander – in – chief of any troops), and the smaller provinces were governed by a “procurator” (senatorial rank). Both rulers played vital roles in the establishment of a well-defined aristocracy by overseeing the political, socio-economic, religion and military affairs in different provinces.[17] Besides, “legions” or “auxiliary troops” were stationed to enforce the elites’ interests.[18] The Romans also maintained healthy relationship with the local rulers for the stability of the Government.[19] Such cooperation also contributed to their mutual benefits, especially when the local rulers “used their knowledge to collect census statistics and were responsible for the gathering of the taxes so crucial for the consumer society in the city of Rome.”[20] In turn, the local rulers could expect:
Roman confirmation and support for their local prestige, but they could also hope to make some profit by creaming off some of the income from tax collection. Eventually they could expect Roman citizenship and would thus merge into the Roman governing class itself, through service in the Roman army or as representatives (procurators) of the emperors.[21]
But only those who were rich and “accorded high status” in the society could qualify for client rulers.[22] Wealthy rulers were needed especially in times when people refused to pay taxes to Romans, because he could easily pay from his own resources.[23] The Romans also entrusted them with the responsibility of tax collection.[24]
4. THE JEWISH ADMINISTRATION
The interest of this section is to briefly highlight the Priestly office.
4.1 Before the Arrival of the Romans
Religiously, the priests “serve as teachers and administrators of the divinely revealed law.”[25] According to Mason, “they were the natural and acknowledged guardians of the Temple whose duty … was to preserve the cult and to administer it.”[26] Their hereditary can also be traced from the Bible.[27] The High Priest (HP) served as the chief: “The most important member of the Priesthood and consequently of the whole people.” [28] He “was consecrated in the same manner as the other priests” [29] and his cultic function involves making “atonement for the sins of the whole people” ((Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16) on the Day of Atonement,[30] thus representing the Jews before God (Yahweh). He was a:
Mediator between God and the people, for he is the only one who may enter the holiest place, and that but once a year (Exo. 29:44; Lev. 16:2-5)… (He) is charged with representing the people to God, by supervising the whole sacrificial system and representing God to the people by ensuring that the divine teachings are propagated and observed (Lev. 10:8-11).[31]
The ordinary priests assisted the HP in his “cultic activities” and sometimes functioned “in his stead.”[32] The HP served as supervisor in the “censing,” and “burnt offering,” under whose supervision was the cultic acts performed.[33] It might be asserted that the HP enjoyed a considerable power in Judaism. He also received certain privileges out of his religious duty. He had the right to first choose the “holy things of the temple” such as “a sin offering (animal or bird), a guilt offering, a portion of food offering, taken from what remained after the offering had been made on the altar…”[34]
Following the Babylonian exile in 586-538 BC, the Jews experienced political instability[35] with the absence of kings and regular prophets, the HP began to function as both religious and political leader.[36] Such reigning in times of troubles was significant for the Jews. “By about 300 BC” or even earlier, the HP “became the head of senate or council of elders (gerousia).”[37] Since then the HP was regarded the leader of the nation.
4.2 After the Arrival of the Romans
The HP functioned as the presiding officer in the Sanhedrin but this time under the restriction of Romans. He became a puppet at the hands of Romans, and a mere “representative of the people of Judea before the procurator.”[38] The Procurator was the one who controlled all the local authorities both civil and religious. He was also given authority to appoint or depose the HP at his will,[39] and the HP was supposed to act according to his supervision.[40] Besides, the Procurator was entrusted to “oversee the revenues flowing into the fisc from the imperial domains and provinces”[41] and “to see that the taxes were duly collected …”[42] The domestic governing body the Sanhedrin was “responsible for the returns of the Roman taxes,” and there is also a possibility that the Council raised taxes from the toparchies.[43] The High Priestly office lost its basic function which is religious at the implementation of Roman administration in Judea. The Romans turned the office into a political institution, and they replaced the legitimate HPs with those who would serve their interests better.[44] Thus, the arrival of Romans in Judea marked the birth of aristocracy: “… constitution became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation,” reported Josephus.[45]
5. THE IMPACTS OF ROMAN ADMINISTRATION IN JUDEA
5. 1. Taxation
In fact, taxation was the direct outcome of Roman aristocratic rule in Judea. There were two common types of taxes: (i) “Tax on agricultural produce” (tributum soli/agri), which was “paid partly in kind, partly in money,” and (ii) “Poll-tax” (tributum capitis) which “included various kinds of personal taxes.”[46] Poll – tax was levied on every male from 14- 65 years old, and female from 12 – 65 years old. [47] There was also “a water tax, a city tax, a tax on meat and salt, and a house tax,”[48]and “indirect charges on imports and exports – town and harbor due, bridge tolls, market fees, and the like.” [49] Perkins reports that the number of various taxes crossed hundred.[50] According to Schürer, “no object, and no sector of the country’s economic life, remained untaxed.” Sad to say that failure to pay tax “was regarded as rebellion.”[51] It is thus estimated that “altogether Roman taxes, customs, etc., and Jewish religious levies took away 40 percent of a person’s income …”[52]
Taxes were also farmed out to the highest bidder. Crownfield asserts that “this system was a breeder of extortion…” [53] The Jews suffered from the exploitation of tax – farming because the publican collected extra 25% of interest from what he had paid to the State.[54] In this process, the tax collectors always became the beneficiaries, and the tax payer the loser.[55] The sum may be small (8 to16 talents = 3140 to 6280 USD), but it was sufficient for the publicans to procure great wealth, recalls Edersheim.[56] It is possible that some of the Jews (e.g. Matthew) took active part in taxation process. Josephus reported that the Jewish officials went about villages collecting taxes when War was about to begin.[57] They also levied taxes (“civic taxation”) “for the maintenance of synagogue, elementary schools, public baths, the support of the poor, the maintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates, and other general requirements.”[58] Sometimes, they are said to have imposed “doubled or tripled” taxation.[59] Theissen once reports that the priestly aristocracy collected 40 talents while the State demanded only 17 talents. The “Peasant Revolts” and the social banditry in Judean countryside might all reflect the oppressive system of taxation.[60]
5. 2. Misappropriation
The second impact was mismanagement of the “Temple treasury.”[61] The Temple received numbers of surplus sacrificial items every year. They are, to mention few, of grains, lambs, birds, doves, mints, etc. Besides, there were regular taxes (tithes and first-fruits), shares in the sacrifices, irregular donations.”[62] Theissen questions the way in which these properties were shared and distributed.[63] Josephus seemed to say that the HPs did not even share rather they appropriated for their own cause.[64] Therefore, those priests who depended on the Temple tithes were “starved to death.”[65]
The HP was also said to have misused his power to procure large money. He practiced “nepotism,” by appointing a Temple treasurer or Temple captain from his family members.[66] Such incident can be drawn from the appointment of Ananus by his father Ananias to be the captain of the Temple, which was the “highest ranking priest after the HP.”[67] Besides, there was “substantial amount that never reached the treasury but was diverted by a horde of tax – collectors and officials, partly as legal perquisites (known as sportulae), partly as illegal exaction,” asserts Finley.[68]
5. 3. Social Tension
Jews believed in theocracy; therefore, the rich and the poor maintained equality compare to other provinces. Since the arrival of the Romans in Judea, Jews experienced social tension between the rich and the poor which they had never experienced before. It widened the gap between rural dwellers (poor peasants) and urban dwellers (rich). Lenski reported that the ruling elites comprised of 5% of the total population consumed 50-65% of the land production. [69] This means that the non – elites comprised of 95% of the total population shared 35-45% of the land production. While the elites enjoyed life in cities, the non-elites lived a miserable life in villages where they were vulnerable to different kinds of sicknesses, malnutrition, etc.[70]
The poor peasant suffered most in times of drought and bad harvest because he had to borrow grain, oil or money (as there was no lending bank) from the rich rulers (which included religious leaders). He could depend on this lending for a short term, but as his debts increased he had no choice but to give up his lands/estates (a son or a daughter into slavery).[71] This was how the rich “gained their wealth at the expense of peasants suffering from a bad harvest.”[72] Worst still was the interests on loan which even reached 300% while the Law permits only 12% interest.[73] Besides, the rich rulers demand repayment of debts even “after the Sabbatical Year” whether or not a formal agreement was made.[74] The pathetic condition of the poor was again aggravated by the Roman landowners who “depended for their wealth on their ability to capture a portion of surplus produced by the peasants in the countryside.”[75] Carter seems right when he posits that “the hard manual work of nonelites and coerced extractions of production sustained the elite’s extravagant and elegant way of life.”[76] Therefore, the infuriated Zealots burnt the archives in AD 66 in which loans were deposited.[77]
6. AN APPRAISAL OF THE EVENTS LEADING TO THE FIRST JEWISH REVOLT
Given the meaning of “corruption” as the misuse of power for personal gain, such form of corruption could be traced from the activities of religious rulers (the HPs) in Judea. HPs were reported to have depended largely on their ability to extract money from their religious function. They were reported to have extracted money from the Temple treasury and tithes, as a matter of fact, the ordinary Priests who previously depended on tithes died in hunger. Besides, the HPs misused their power by the practice of nepotism (which according to Nye is corruption). Thus, it appears that power was misused for personal gain in all probability so that the discontented masses rebelled against them in AD 66.
The practice of extortionary corruption was prevalent in the Judean province of Roman Empire. The Romans together with Jewish religious leaders extracted money with coercion. They imposed double/triple taxation, they charged extra interest for loan, they captured the portion of surplus produced by the peasants, and used these agents for personal gain. The rich enjoyed life at the expense of the poor peasants. Therefore, the open protest took place in AD 66 which is the common characteristic of extortionary corruption.
The practices of corruption in Judea by the religious leaders may also reflect the Roman administration which was aristocratic. When the Romans came to the province in AD 6, they forced the local rulers (HP) to collaborate with them and appointed them as client rulers. They also entrusted them to carry out the State’s interests. The Sanhedrin, in which the HP acted as the presiding officer, was also said to have participated in the actualization of the State’s interest (e.g., collection of taxes).[78] Thus, there is a plausibility that the practice of corruption in Judea by the HPs began with the implementation of Roman Administration in the province.
7. CONCLUSION
The Roman administration was aristocratic in a sense that power and wealth lay at the hands of few ruling elites. As imperial empire, the Romans established many new provinces in which they also implemented new administration. Likewise, the province of Judea witnessed new administrative system (aristocracy) upon the arrival of Romans. The Priestly office of the religious administration was turned secular (political) administration. Since then, the main function of Jewish religious leaders became political which carried out the interests of Roman Government. In the course of time, greedy religious leaders were born. Therefore, they applied every possible means to extract money for their self gain. They demanded doubled/tripled taxation and misused the Temple treasury, leaving the ordinary priests starved to death. As a result, the poor peasants were left wanting. Infuriated by the practices of corruption by religious leaders together with the Roman State, the common masses rose against them in AD 66-70, targeting both the Romans and the religious leaders.
[1] It generally refers to Priests/High Priests. Note also that the phrase religious leaders or Jewish religious leaders convey same meaning.
[2] A. S. Hornby, “Corruption,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, edited by Sally Wehmeier, Collin McIntosh and Joann Turnbull, 7th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): 334.
[3] Pankaj Deep, “Corruption, Transparency and Good Governance,” Social Action 59/4 (Oct – Dec 2009): 384.
[4] Samuel Paul, “Corruption: Agenda For Action,” Integral Liberation 7/3 (Oct – 2003): 194.
[5] Joseph S. Nye, 1967, “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost – Benefit Analysis,” 417, as cited in Deep, “Corruption,” 384.
[6] Anupam Hazra, “Corruption and Development: Exploring the Dynamics,” Social Action 59/4 (Oct –Dec 2009): 370.
[7] Paul, “Corruption,” 196.
[8]Colin M. Wells, “Roman Empire,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992): 803.
[9] David G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement, edited by John Barclay, Joel Marcus and John Riches (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 65.
[10] Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 3.
[11] Carter, The Roman Empire, 3.
[12] Richard Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 24-5.
[13] Wells, “Roman Empire,” 805.
[14] Carter, The Roman Empire, 3.
[15] Gregory S. Aldrete, Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia (London: Greenwood Press, 2004), 43-4.
[16] Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 21.
[17] Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A. D. 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 35.
[18] Carter, The Roman Empire, 4.
[19] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 33.
[20] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 33-6.
[21] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 34. The advantage of becoming Roman citizenship is “exemption from paying most taxes.” John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), 30.
[22] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 36.
[23] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 33, 35-6.
[24] Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C. – A. D. 135), revised and edited by Geza Vermes & Fergus Millar, vol. I (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1973), 401.
[25] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 118.
[26] Charles Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus (New York: University Books, 1968), 56.
[27] Num. 3:10; Deut. 18:1 (NRSV)
[28] Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 147-221.
[29] D. A. Hubbard, “Priests and Levites,” New Bible Dictionary, edited by I. H. Marshall, et. al., 3rd edition (Secunderabad: OM-Authentic Books, 2007): 957.
[30] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 153. It was a day of fasting, self-denial (on 10th of the 7th month, Tishri) (Lev. 16:29).
[31] Mason, Josephus, 118-119.
[32] Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible From 500 B. C. to A. D. 100, translated by David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 164.
[33] The activities were carried out twice a day in both the cases. Reicke, The New Testament, 164.
[34] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 150.
[35] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 56.
[36] Mason, Josephus, 119.
[37] Mason, Josephus, 119. The origin is difficult to trace. Some suggest the “tent of meeting” in Numbers 11:16 or elders in Ezra 5: 5, 9 or nobles and rulers in Neh. 2:16; 5:7.
[38] Reicke, The New Testament, 144.
[39] Reicke, The New Testament, 144.
[40] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 110.
[41] Reicke, The New Testament, 138.
[42] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 37.
[43] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 54.
[44] Mason, Josephus, 119.
[45] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, Book XX, translated by L. H. Feldman, vol. X (London: Harvard University Press, 1981), 20: 251. (Hereafter referred to as A. J.)
[46] In Syria, a personal tax imposed reaches 1% of his property valuation. Schürer, The History of, vol. I, 401-02.
[47] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 53-4. Taxes were collected even from slaves Schürer, The History of, vol. I, 403.
[48] Frederick R. Crownfield, A Historical Approach to the New Testament (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 96.
[49] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 39.
[50] Pheme Perkins, “Taxes in the New Testament,” Journal of Religious Ethics 12/2 (1984): 183.
[51] Carter, The Roman Empire, 3-4.
[52] James B. Adamson, James: The Man and His Message (Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 235. Carter posits that the peasants or fisherman gave away about 20 – 40% to the elites. Carter, The Roman Empire, 3-4.
[53] Crownfield, A Historical Approach, 96.
[54]Albert A. Bell, Jr., A Guide to the New Testament World (Pennsylvania: Herald Express, 1993), 87-8.
[55] John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 43.
[56] But this example is drawn from the tax farming in Ptolemic period (ca. 300-30 BC). Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish, 52.
[57] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Books I – III, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, vol. II (London: Harvard University Press, 1976), 2: 405.
[58] Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish, 53.
[59] Richard A. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Continuum, 1994), 88-9.
[60] A. J. 20. 124.
[61] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 99.
[62] Donations can be those which are “in connection with oaths and penances.” Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament, translated by Margaret Kohl (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 107.
[63]Theissen, Social Reality, 107.
[64] A. J. 20. 181.
[65] A. J. 20. 181.
[66] A. J. 20. 131
[67] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 99, 160.
[68] M. I. Finley, Ancient Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 90.
[69] Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, 2nd edition (London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 228, as cited in K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 113.
[70] Carter, The Roman Empire, 10-11.
[71] Horsley, Sociology, 89.
[72] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 56.
[73] Jewish Law in fact forbids taking interest (Lev. 25:36-7) though this was exceptional, the Jews could consider up to 12%. Adamson, James, 251.
[74] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 57-8.
[75] Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 5.
[76] Carter, The Roman Empire, 11.
[77] E. Bammel, “The Poor and the Zealots,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 113.
[78] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 115-16.
LAI-LEENG 