Jewish Revolt

[M. Demetrius]

Theo, I don't think you could get the Sanhedrin to agree that the Romans were in any way benevolent. The tax rate was pretty stiff, and the tax collectors not very reputable.

[Theodosius the Great]

How can I be wrong when I just stated my opinion? I was only commenting on the First Jewish War (66 AD) which is what the thread is about. The only thing I said that you could possibly dispute is that the war had little cause. I'm sure there wasn't enough cause to start a war over if we're to ignore the futility of one for a moment.

~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

Theo, I don't think you could get the Sanhedrin to agree that the Romans were in any way benevolent. The tax rate was pretty stiff, and the tax collectors not very reputable.

They weren't behind the war. They were generally pro-Roman and had the most to lose besides the king. But they were only one faction.

[M. Demetrius]

On that point, you're right. Opinions can be disagreed with, but shouldn't be flatly denied. Statements of fact, on the other hand, can and should be politely refuted if they are incorrect according to what we know about the topic.
*
The Romans really wanted to control the area, but they didn't want to expend massive expense to conquer it, because there was not any great resource that could pay them back for their trouble. The huge treasure in the Temple was removed, but that was at the end of the Revolt.

[Theodosius the Great]

They could certainly hope for such an ideal, but what they tended to get was a corrupt Roman prefect or procurator who could not keep his hands of the temple treasury (Josephus cites plenty of those)

You may have misread my statement. I said that it was the most ideal arrangement that could possibly be hoped for (i.e. practically speaking). There were few attractive alternatives. A Jewish client-king arrangement was unpopular. There's no Persian Empire to turn to. So, the best foreigners to live under were the Romans who showed great accomodation when compared to other provinces.

And the Temple treasury was often used for secular building projects in the past. That was not an issue. It wasn't sacrilege to do so. I think the way it was mishandled by the procurators was what caused problems.

And taxes weren't so high. The problem was corrupt tax collectors who took in far more than what the Romans asked for. Now that may not have been evident to the man on the street but it is a very important distinction to make. So, tax rates were not an issue.

If anything, I think the Romans did not intervene enough to protect freedom of Jewish worship or to protect the provincials from extortion. That may have prevented the factions from warring with one another.

The whole event really was a civil war that the Romans just got caught up in. At least, that's my understanding which you're free to correct, of course.

Direct Roman rule was actually preferred to living under any of the Herods.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

The Judeans had little cause to revolt.

I cannot agree. King Herod had been able to raise about 19.3% taxes every year. That's excessive, but he spent it in Judaea. The people had to work hard, but there was economic growth. Rome did not change this (see Richard Duncan-Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy [1990] 189), but spent the money abroad. The country was ruined. From surveys, we learn that there were less mid-class farms, while big farms became bigger.

It's no coincidence that Hillel invented the prozbul in these years, and that so many texts in the gospels are about debts. By the mid-century, the country was ruined. The rise of the Zealot movement was a logical response.

It wasn't as if they were living under the oppressive Selueucids.

About the Seleucids: how repressive is a tax of 360 talents for a whole country? One city, Leptis Magna, at the same time, paid the same amount. I know that Daniel, Polybius, and 1 and 2 Maccabees all have reasons to write unkindly about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but his reputation is now better than it used to be. You might be interested in P.F. Mittag's biography (review).

I don't think you could get the Sanhedrin to agree that the Romans were in any way benevolent.

I think the members of the Sanhedrin did not object to Roman rule. They had sufficient land and income to pay taxes. It was the poor, who could no longer pay their mortgages, who were angry.

Direct Roman rule was actually preferred to living under any of the Herods.

Only in 6. After the census of Quirinius, people revolted. After some time, in 27 if I recall correctly, they sent an embassy to Rome to ask for lower taxes. (Tacitus does not mention that they were granted.)

[Theodosius the Great]

I cannot agree. King Herod had been able to raise about 19.3% taxes every year. That's excessive, but he spent it in Judaea. The people had to work hard, but there was economic growth. Rome did not change this (see Richard Duncan-Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy [1990] 189), but spent the money abroad. The country was ruined. From surveys, we learn that there were less mid-class farms, while big farms became bigger.

Could you please clarify, Jona? 19.3% of what? On income?

To account for corruption I would imagine the real percentage was higher when the Roman tax collectors took over. The Romans, as I understand it, outsourced tax collecting to local private companies so there was no oversight of any kind.

So, I do not think this corruption can be attributed to the Roman state. Except in the sense that it neglected to curb the corruption. This is different, IMO, from state oppression which could justify a revolt.

As for spending taxes abroad, there was the Parthian War of the late 50s and early 60s to pay for which was mutually beneficial to Rome and Judea. Rome was now directly responsible for the protection of the province. Local spending does not seem to have ceased as I recently mentioned in another thread. Coins discoveries indicate that the Western (Wailing) Wall may have been completed during the reign of Valerius Gratus.

Yes, the rise of the Zealots is understandable. But, of course, they hardly represented all of Judea. No faction could or did. That's my main point. There were Jews who fought on both sides during the Revolt which started as and largely remained a regional civil war. Besides the Zealots, which faction was actively anti-Roman? Josephus mentions only one incident prior to the war of an anti-Roman uprising led by an Egyptian. This man failed to convince the Jerusalemites to let him in the city to overthrow Roman rule.

About the Seleucids: how repressive is a tax of 360 talents for a whole country? One city, Leptis Magna, at the same time, paid the same amount. I know that Daniel, Polybius, and 1 and 2 Maccabees all have reasons to write unkindly about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but his reputation is now better than it used to be. You might be interested in P.F. Mittag's biography (review).

Well, I was primarily refering to religious oppression. I didn't know they imposed 360 talents as an annual tax rate. Thanks for the link! Very interested.

Only in 6. After the census of Quirinius, people revolted. After some time, in 27 if I recall correctly, they sent an embassy to Rome to ask for lower taxes. (Tacitus does not mention that they were granted.)

Yes, census taking tends to spark revolts as it did in Illyria also in 6.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Could you please clarify, Jona? 19.3% of what? On income?

Yes; it's mentioned in Josephus somewhere, and you have to take the sabbat-year into account. I will check.

Well, I was primarily refering to religious oppression.

Was there? I am serious. What real evidence is there? There's of course 1 and 2 Maccabees, but they were written to prove that the Hasmonaeans, who had no claim to the high priesthood (they did not belong to the Zadokites), were right to revolt and seize power in Jerusalem. Daniel only mentions that there will be "an abomination of desolation" - a reference to something terrible, of course, but was it a persecution?

I am not saying that nothing happened. But if Antiochus IV merely visited Jerusalem, seized some money (as was his right), and entered the shrine, we have explained a lot. Many Jews must have experienced it as an outright disaster, but I am not so sure whether this says very much about Seleucid policy. What I am claiming is that there is much room for doubt.

I didn't know they imposed 360 talents as an annual tax rate.

Somewhere in 1 or 2 Maccabees.

[M. Demetrius]

The Romans, as I understand it, outsourced tax collecting to local private companies so there was no oversight of any kind.

Somewhere I read that the hired tax collectors were told what the Romans wanted from the proceeds, but whatever else they could collect they could keep. The Gospel account of Zacchaeus makes it clear that there was fraud, if not extortion going on. Then, as now, nobody much likes tax collectors.

[Jona Lendering]

The Romans, as I understand it, outsourced tax collecting to local private companies so there was no oversight of any kind.

Somewhere I read that the hired tax collectors were told what the Romans wanted from the proceeds, but whatever else they could collect they could keep. The Gospel account of Zacchaeus makes it clear that there was fraud, if not extortion going on. Then, as now, nobody much likes tax collectors.

Unfortunately, the system described is Republican. But Judaea was part of Syria, which was not a Senatorial, but an Imperial province. Taxes were collected by the emperor's procurator, a prefect, or someone else. Tax farming was, if I recall correctly, not applied in these parts. That still doesn't exclude the possibility of fraud and corruption of course.

[Robert Vermaat]

I didn't know they imposed 360 talents as an annual tax rate.

Somewhere in 1 or 2 Maccabees.

2 Maccabees 4:8 Promising unto the king by intercession three hundred and threescore talents of silver, and of another revenue eighty talents http://www.biblicalproportions.com/modul...ccabees/4/

[Robert Vermaat]

Could you please clarify, Jona? 19.3% of what? On income?

Yes; it's mentioned in Josephus somewhere, and you have to take the sabbat-year into account. I will check.

There's a nice article about these taxes here, which seems very well researched and referenced: http://www.kchanson.com/articles/fishing.html

[Jona Lendering]

Could you please clarify, Jona? 19.3% of what? On income?

Yes; it's mentioned in Josephus somewhere, and you have to take the sabbat-year into account. I will check.

It's the tax decree of Julius Caesar, quoted in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.202ff: 25% per biennium, 10% per year, and no taxes in the sabbat year. That's 19.3%. There's confirmation from Hyginus (205L) that the Jews paid one fifth.

It was converted from a tithe into a money tax by Quirinius (JA 18.3). A reduction was asked, says Tacitus, in 17 AD (Annals 2.42). Immediately after, Caiaphas became high priest, and it has been argued that he was a member of the embassy to Rome.

[Theodosius the Great]

Taxes were collected by the emperor's procurator, a prefect, or someone else.

IIRC, a Procurator's traditional role was to collect taxes and manage the province's finances. A Prefect, at least traditionally, was purely a military position. I wonder if the tax collecting for Judea was delegated to the Prefects by the Syrian governor. Judea's first procurator was Cuspius Fadus in 44.

Tax farming was, if I recall correctly, not applied in these parts. That still doesn't exclude the possibility of fraud and corruption of course.

Matthew's Gospel describes him as a former tax collector. But I suppose since he lived in Galilee that he would've been a royal tax collector under Antipas.

It was converted from a tithe into a money tax by Quirinius (JA 18.3). A reduction was asked, says Tacitus, in 17 AD (Annals 2.42). Immediately after, Caiaphas became high priest, and it has been argued that he was a member of the embassy to Rome.

So this tax rate was maintained, as you said, even after the breakup of Herod's kingdom into smaller provinces, at least in the province of Judea. It's interesting to think that a request for tax relief was made directly to the emperor and not the prefect. So, I thought maybe going through the prefect was not a proper channel since he was just a military man. I wonder if the other neighboring provinces granted tax relief to the former Temple workers once their task was completed.

~Theo

[M. Demetrius]

Taxes were collected by the emperor's procurator, a prefect, or someone else.

IIRC, a Procurator's traditional role was to collect taxes and manage the province's finances.

Didn't the Procurator collect the taxes collected by lots of local representatives, semi-government officials (Matthew and Zaccheus from the Gospels, e.g.) ? His was the office that the actual collectors brought their records and revenue to, in other words, and from the Procurator's office, the taxes would make their way up the chain, some of the money ultimately ending up in Rome. Right?