(Hindley, David) Herodian & Roman Taxation Policy

8/11/2019 (Hindley, David) Herodian & Roman Taxation Policy

1/9

Some years ago I summarized the scattered references to Roman direct tax policies in the RevisedEnglish edition of Emil Sch rers _The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ_ (edited by Geza Vermes,Fergus Miller and Matthew Black, volume 1, 1973).

THE ROMAN CENSUS:

A) Roman Citizens:

The original Roman census as it developed during the time of the Republic concerned only RomanCitizens. It was an inventory of Roman citizens and their possessions taken for two purposes:

(1) the regulation of military service, and

(2) the collection of direct taxes. The [citizen] to be assessed had to report to the censor and declare hispossessions; but it was the custom for the head of the family to make the declaration for himself andthe whole family. (p. 401 )

Under the Empire, and even in the later years of the Republic, the census of Roman citizens hadcompletely lost its original significance since they (i.e., the whole of Italy and colonies with [the legaldesignation of] *Ius Italicum*) no longer paid direct taxes or were liable to regular or universalconscription. If therefore Augustus, Claudius and Vespasian [who carried out the last full census ofRoman citizens in AD 73/74] still took censuses of Roman citizens, it was only for the purpose ofstatistics or because of the religious ceremonies connected with them, but not for the levying of taxes.(p. 401)

B) The Provinces:

The provincial census was fundamentally different *from a census of Roman citizens], the control of

taxation being its main function. There was great diversity, too, even in this respect in the early days ofthe Empire. In general, however, the same principals were applied which in later juristic documents([compiled in] Digest . L, 15: De censibus) are presumed to prevail everywh ere. (p. 401).

C) How was it conducted?

As far as the provincial census is concerned, i.e., the preparation of lists for the purpose of taxation,this was conducted in the same manner as the census of Roman citizens. (p. 403)

D) What taxes were involved?

From these it is evident that there were two kinds of direct taxes for the provinces: [and from here on Iam paraphrasing pp. 401-403, but keep the original wording whenever I can+

(1) a tax on agricultural produce, *tributum soli*. [This] was paid partly in kind, partly in money. [e.g.,Egypt and parts of Africa supplied through this tax enough grain to feed all Italy].

(2) a poll-tax, *tributum capitis*. The second included various kinds of personal taxes:

(a) a property tax which varied according to a persons capital valuation.


2/9

For example, in Appians time non -Roman citizens resident in Syria and Cilicia paid a tax of 1% of theamount of valuation. There does appear to be a question as to whether the valuation tax was furthersplit between landed property and moveable possessions.

(b) a poll- tax proper at a flat rate per all capita *heads+. Women and slaves were also subject to thistax. Only children and old people were exempt. In Egypt a poll-tax was levied that was not identical forall the inhabitants but varied for each category of the population. This was accomplished by segregatingthe country into communities with a privileged class of metropolites subject to a lower rate. In Syria,men aged 14-65 and women aged 12-65, were subject to poll-taxes. In Egypt, the obligation lasted fromthe age of 14 to 60 or 61.

In both *the above+ cases *of poll -taxes] the expressions *edere* [i.e., to put forth, or give out,(documents or data)], *deferre censum* [i.e., to report, or bring certain things, to the place where thecensus was conducted in his area], [and] *profitari* [i.e., to make a public statement, or make a (tax)return of property] were used, from which it is evident that the taxpayer himself had to submit thenecessary data, which were then checked by the officials. This declaration had to be made in the chieftown of each taxation district; indeed, landed estates were required to be registered for taxation in the

communities in which they are sit uated. (p. 403).

E) Frequency:

No regular census was taken in Republican times of the nations subject to Rome. They were conductedhere and there, but were not closely connected either with each other, or with the census of Romancitizens. (p. 401)

[in later periods i]t is not known for sure how often the censuses were renewed. A clear idea of this canonly be gained in the case of Egypt, because of the abundant material which the papyrus finds in thatcountry have brought to light. In Roman times there were two kinds of periodic registration

(*apographai*), for which the inhabitants themselves were obliged to supply the information.

(1) Every fourteen years each house-owner was required to deliver to the authorities a list of thoseresiding in his house during the past year [see D2b above+. These registers, called kat oikianapographai*, served mainly in the assessment of poll- tax. *in a footnote (#17), he says It is possible, butnot certain that these regular population counts [in Egypt] were introduced under Augustus. The earliestactually attested is that of A.D. 33/4, (or possibly A.D. 19/20...), and there is evidence for every census ofthe fourteen-year cycle from then until A.D. 258. It has been argued, however, that the cycle actuallybegan in 10/9 B.C. - see esp. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt on P. Oxy. 254---and even as early as 24/23B.C., see [S. L.] Wallace, [Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (1938)] pp. 97-98, andTcherikover in Journ. Juristic Pap. 4 (1950), p 18; for a skeptical view of the theory that the [Egyptian]cycle began under Augustus see Hombert, Preaux, *Recherches sur le recensement dans lEgypteromaine (1952)], pp. 47- 55.+ Presumably the reason for the fourteen -year period was that liability topay the poll-tax began at the age of 14. It was therefor not necessary to supplement the lists with birthnotices within the period. On the other hand, deaths appear to have been regularly registered with theauthorities. The lists supplied evidence for the *epikrisis*, or examination to determine status, and theconsequent liability for poll tax. *He doesnt specifically say so in this place, but based on what is stated in D2a above, it appears that at this same time that landed property was also declared. See the finalparagraph, and my comment, of section E2 below.]


3/9

(2) Each year, every property-owner had to give a written record, applying to the current year, of hismovable possessions such as cattle, ships and slaves. These declarations for tax purposes are also called*apographai*. The tax was then determined on the basis of the details supplied, these latter havingbeen checked by the authorities. Footnote #20 adds Wilcken supposed, in his Ostraka I, pp. 456-469,that the annual property declarations included landed property as well, and not only movablepossessions. The general inclusion of landed property only took place when there was a need for it, andwas specially ordered in each case. Moreover, the official registers of landed property were kept up todate because of the notices served on each change of ownership [i.e., under normal circumstances,ownership of landed property can be tracked through each 14 year cycle through deeds filed withauthorities.+. (pp. 403 -404)

The situation in the Tetrarchy of Antipas is another matter. I have some sources to offer but it will haveto wait until after work today because it is not in summarized form.

I came across a site that mentions Fabian E. Udoh, assistant professor in the Program of Liberal Studiesat Notre Dame University, "an expert on the New Testament and the history of Palestine in the days ofJesus," and his "forthcoming" book _Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine_, which examines

taxation in Jewish Palestine from 63 B.C. to 70 A.D.

I could find no such book in or out of print, but did find this was the name of his Doctoral Thesis at DukeUniversity, 1996. (LC NO DS121 .U46 1996a OCLC # 44750220 Isn/std # .b52273647)

Udoh reportedly looked at elements of the story: "Did a Roman tax exist in Jesus's time that everyonewas required to pay? Was payment required in a particular Roman coin? Would that coin have bornethe likeness of the emperor, and if so, would it have been circulating in such abundance that Jesus couldhave reasonably expected one to be produced on the spot?"

Udoh is said to find "no evidence from the period of a census-based, per-capita tribute or "poll tax," as

the word in Matthew and Mark is customarily translated." Instead, assessments likely would have beenbased on agricultural production and paid in-kind with farm products like grain. In Udoh's analysis"Rome did not impose a "per capita" tribute on the people in Judea until 70 A.D. He also finds noevidence of a direct tribute requiring payment in Roman money. Finally, he observes that since colonialtaxes are notoriously difficult to collect, requiring payment in a specific coin would have only madecollection more difficult." Udoh says "archeological findings suggest they were not the silver coin beingused at the time. That coin was the Tyrian shekel."

http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/au2001/bible.html Autumn 2001 Notre Dame Magazine Online

It seems that something like this is exactly the kind of article that Robert's doctor ordered, unless ofcourse he just wants to make it plain that denarii with the images of six different Roman rulers werecirculating in Palestine at the time and that the coin Jesus was shown was not necessarily the one thatcoin collectors foist on unknowing buyers (Tiberius/Livia).

It seems to me that the basic organization of the political entities active in the Roman world, includingthe Levant, would look something like this:

Roman Government


4/9

Provinces


5/9


6/9

"Modern scholarship has been ambivalent about the economy of Herod's kingdom and the tax demandshe made upon his subjects. On the one hand, most scholars recognize the merits of Herod's financialand administrative abilities and the relative prosperity which his enterprises could have brought to hiskingdom. Yet,on the other hand, the view is also widespread and persistent that he spent himself tobankruptcy and taxed his subjects to 'helpless poverty." [a quotation from Freyne is snipped}

We cannot fully assess the 'real hardships' which resulted from Herod's reign. But need we assume thathis reign was a particularly difficult time financially' for Jewish Palestine and that this difficulty came as aresult of Herod's tax policy? [what follows is his justification for this statement, pages 189-283]"

Udoh's curriculum vitae at U. of Notre Dame indicates, under "Publications": "Book Length Manuscript(in progress) _To Caesar What is Caesars: Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine (63 BCE-70 CE)_.Accepted for publication in Brown Universitys Brown Judaic Studies series (expected Spring 2004?)." While I have not seen any indication Amazon or Barnes & Noble know it is due out in spring of this year,SBL Publications will be the ultimate publisher.

>>How do you see this "improvement" in relationship to the mayhem that broke out after Herod's

death... and then further the growing tensions across the decades that led up to the Roman-Jewishwar?


7/9

I'd think that Antipas (and Philip) would have argued that his realm was exempt from obligations to thetemple state, a state which likely only exerted tax (tithe) authority over a subset of the lands within theprovince of Judaea. As a result, his subjects would have already for some time been relieved of theobligation to tithe to the temple and had been paying taxes directly, probably in the form of rent, to the"owner" of the countryside, i.e., Antipas. Keep in mind too that Sepphoris was about halfway betweenthe sea to the west and the lake to the east, while Tiberias was on the lake and thus able to have grainshipped to it from greater distances than might be feasible by land. Also, since a major road led fromTiberias through Sepphoris, and from there to either Ceasarea or Ptolemais, Antipas had significantrevenues from the routes of trade coming from Damascus.

Perhaps, after decades of corrupt management of Judaean affairs by the Roman prefects, it was likelyclear to Antipas' subjects that they were not fit managers of the temple state, and would probably notwant to be under its authority anyhow, at least as it stood. King Agrippa I apparently reconstituted hisgrandfather's constitution (including its former relationship with the temple state) after receivingvirtually his original realm in 41 CE, and until he died in 44 CE. Even though he actually began taxing theJewish settlers in Trachonitis and Batanaea, was a conspicuous spender like his grandfather but not asable an administrator, and departed from traditional customs in some ways more excessively than

Herod had done, Agrippa I was still remembered favorably by the rabbis.

Agrippa benefited from the groundwork Herod had laid, and I would say probably so also did Antipas,with his main impediment being he had no way to return the temple state to the way his father had setit up to operate. Here you are probably right. If anything, the fact that he was a lesser prince underRoman dominion with little real power to effect a return to the biblical way would be a more seriousgripe against him than whether he added another major urban center to his kingdom, since I do notthink the evidence really shows serious stress within the economy of his kingdom.

Economic prosperity is no guarantee that all subjects will be happy with the ruler. Look at the modernday Arab resistance movements targeting the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, a state that is undeniably

prosperous by Arab standards. Their charge: That the ruling family is too dependent upon deals with theWestern world and opening the kingdom to the corrupting influence of its non-Islamic culture.

>>Do you think that the coming of the Roman authority and the rule of Herod and Antipas did produce"happy entrepreneurs?"


8/9

take advantage of the economic situation? Artisans would have work. Merchants had a chance to makedeals. Once fallow land would have to be put under cultivation to support them. Its like a business thatgains 50% of its income from distributing, and 50% from manufacturing, leaving its plant operating at75% of capacity. When needed, the production can be ratcheted up from 75% to 90% of capacity. Therewould undoubtedly be inducements offered to encourage people of all classes of society to emigratethere, like a modern business offers shift differentials and overtime. It worked in Cochinchina (per Scott)and the US West, with some injustices and tragedies along the way to be sure, so why not in Galilee?

Luke does tend to be more Roman friendly, in the sense of not wishing to offend Roman sensibilities,and those sensibilities included a healthy suspicion of anything even remotely suggesting rebelliousness.Matthew was interested in explaining (away) the charge of rebellion (from the royal attribution Jesusseems to have received or perhaps claimed during his lifetime) as misunderstandings.

>>Am not familiar with that title, David. Brandon's theme tended to be insurrection. No shortage ofliterature on that front.>The polemic I was addressing targets Herod and the priestly regime of his era. Some may think that asubtle distinction, but I find it fundamental to the L-A narrative, with implications for other gospeltradition.>I honestly don't think we have any substantive evidence as to the decade in which the gospels or theirsources were written. The theories are just that. Robinson's "Redating ..." felt plausible to me when Iread it, and matched my mood at that time, but I admit that one could create quite a list of significantevents that fail to show up in the NT. What seems more important to me is material that seems wellrooted in the narrative context - fact or fiction. Exploring that is challenge enough and offers a betterkey to historical evaluation IMHO.


9/9

I would differ as to what constitutes "substantive" evidence. We have fairly detailed knowledge of thesignificant historical events of the period from Josephus and some non-Jewish sources. When we try todate early Christian documents we have to fit them within this historical framework by identifying ideasand possible historical allusions contained in them, and this is done by means of literary criticism. Theproblem is that there are huge numbers of possibilities. Critics differ on the methodologies employed toreduce these possibilities to a manageable number of "most-likely" ones.

>>Undoubtedly [Jesus' family was making various claims about him to bolster his royal image]. This is anobvious candidate for fictional extrapolations. Hence my earlier question on XTalk about the likelihoodof tribal affiliation with a southern tribe being likely in Galilee. People were identified by name,paternity, and home community. Am I right in saying that the tribal affiliation of the twelve passeswithout note or comment? Very odd, if the import of twelve was rooted in the twelve tribes of Israel.Tribes were allotted territory. Mention of a man's tribe might therefore reflect geography rather thanantecedence. Would that make Jesus, Son of David, of the tribe of Judah, a misfit in Nazareth?

Documents

(Hindley, David) Herodian & Roman Taxation Policy