+ Cf., on the friendly disposition of the early Ptolemies to the Jews, in general, Jos. ¢. Apion, ii. 4, 5.—A Ptolemy once actually granted the right of asylum to a Jewish proseuche (CIL iii. Suppl. No. 6583 Baosreds . Trorcwocias Kvepyirns viv xporevyiy &ovacy. The monarch referred to is probably Ptolemy
ul., for had it been Euergetes 1. = Ptolemy vil., we should have expected his consort to be named along with him).
2 SS
DIASPORA
Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes was quite an ex- ceptional phenomenon. Pre-eminent as a friend of the Jews was Ptolemy vi. (Philometor), who even permitted a Jewish temple to be built in Heyrt (see below, §v.). The hostile attitude to the Jews assumed by Ptolemy vu. (Physcon) was due, not to their religious ‘but their political partisanship (Jos. c. Apion. ii. 5).
The free exercise of their religion was expressly allowed to the Jews also by the Roman legislation, which safeguarded it from any attempts at sup- pression by the Greek communes. It was especially to Cesar and Augustus that the Jews were indebted for their formal recognition in the Roman Empire. A whole series of acts have been preserved for us by Josephus (Ant. XIV. x., XVI. vi.), partly resolu- tions of the Senate, partly edicts of Cesar and Augustus, partly those of Roman officials or of communal authorities of the same date. These all have the same purpose, namely, to secure for the Jews the free exercise of their religion and the maintenance of their privileges (cf., on these acts, especially the investigation of Mendelssohn in Acta Societatis Phil. Lips., ed. Ritschelius, v. [1875] 87- 288 ; also Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, cols. 390- 396 ; Niese in Hermes, xi. [1876] 466-488). While Cesar prohibited in general all collegia except those that had existed from remote antiquity, the Jewish communities were expressly excluded from this prohibition (Jos. Ant. XIV. x. 8: kal yap Tdcos Kaicap 6 iuérepos otparnyds Kal traros évy TO dua- Tdyuare Kwdiav Odoous cuvdryecOar kara wow pdvous ToUTOUS ovK ExdAuaev odie XpnudTW cwvELapepew oi'rE civoeimva moe). We find, for instance, a Roman official appealing to this decree in warning the authorities of Paros not to interfere with the Jews in the practice of their religious observances (Jos. l.e.). It is likewise to the influence of Cesar that we should probably trace the four decrees quoted by Josephus, Ant. XIv. x. 20-24. The object, direct or indirect, of all of them is to guarantee to the Jews of Asia Minor (Laodicea, Miletus, Halicarnassus, Sardis) the unimpeded exercise of their religion. After Czsar’s death, the two con- tending parties vied with one another in maintain- ing the privileges of the Jews. On the one hand, Dolabella, the partisan of Antony, who made himself master of Asia Minor in the year B.c. 43, confirmed to the Jews the exemption from military service and the religious freedom granted them by former governors (Ant. XIv. x. 11, 12). On the other hand, M. Junius Brutus, who in the spring of the year 42 was making warlike preparations in Asia Minor against Antony and Octavianus, per- suaded the Ephesians to adopt a resolution that the Jews were not to be interfered with in their observance of the Sabbath and their other religi- ous practices (Ant. XIV. x. 25).
1 this had the effect of bringing about a legal standing, in virtue of which Judaism was a ‘religio licita’ throughout the whole of the Roman Empire (Tertull. Apolog. 21, ‘insignissima religio, certe licita’ [the expression, by the way, is not a technical one in Roman law, which speaks of ‘collegia licita ’]). That, amongst others, the Jews in the city of Rome enjoyed this legal standing, is speci- ally testified by Philo for the time of Augustus (Legatio ad Gaiwm, § 23 [ed. Mangey, ii. 568 f.]). It is true, however, that down to the 2nd cent. A.D. foreign sacra could be practised only outside the ‘pomerium.’ ip
The State recognition of the Jewish communities is essentially connected with two important con- cessions: the right of administering their own funds, and jurisdiction over their own members. The former of these had a special importance, owing to the collecting and transmitting of the dues paid to the temple at Jerusalem. The
DIASPORA 103
governor Flaccus, a contemporary of Cicero, had interfered with this (Cie. in Flaccum, 28; see the text of the passage quoted above, §i.). The com- munal authorities of Asia likewise appear, even after the edicts of Czesar’s time and in spite of these, to have continued to act in a similar way. The decrees of the time of Augustus econdingis bear chiefly upon this point. As Augustus per- mitted the export of sums of money from Rome itself (Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, § 23 [ed. Mangey, ii. 568 f.]), it was impressed upon the communes of Asia Minor and Cyrene that in this matter they must put no obstacle in the way of the Jews (Jos. Ant. XVI. vi. 2-7; Philo, Legatio ad Gatum, § 40 [ed. Mangey, ii. 592)).
Of equal importance for the Jewish communities was the possession of a jurisdiction of their own. Since the Mosaic law has regard not only to the performance of the cultus but also to the relations of civil life, placing the latter under the control of a Divine law, it was intolerable to the Jewish con- science that Jews should be judged by any code of laws but their own. Wherever the Jews came they brought their own system of law with them, and executed justice, according to its standard, in the case of their fellow-members. It may be re- garded as probable that the employment of their own code in civil processes was everywhere sanc- tioned by the State authorities, in so far, that is to say, as complaints of Jews against one another were concerned. Not only must this have self- evidently been the case at Alexandria, but it is witnessed to also for Asia Minor by a despatch of Lucius Antonius (governor of the Province of Asia, B.C. 50-49) to the authorities of Sardis (Jos. Ant. XIV. x. 17: "Iovdatoc moira iuérepor tpocehOdvres ror emédeeav avrovs ctvodov éxew ldlav kata rTovs marplous vouous am’ dpxfjs kat rbrov too, év Th Te mpdywara Kal Tas mpds dAAHAOUS dvTiAoylas Kplvovow* rotré re airnoapévas iv’ é&y movety adrots, THpjoa. Kal émirpéWar €xpwa). The terms of this despatch show that even those Jews who possessed the Roman citizenship (roNtrac jpérepor), and as Roman citizens could have sought redress before the conventus civium Romanorum, preferred to bring their disputes before the Jewish tribunal (avvodos, conventus) for decision. Even in the legis- lation of the later Imperial period, this Jewish jurisdiction continued to be recognized in civil cases (Codex Theodosianus, I. i. 10 [Decree of the emperors Arcadius and Honorius of the year 398]: ‘Sane si qui per compromissum, ad similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Judeos vel patriarchas ex con- sensu partium in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum judicium jure publico non vetentur: eorum etiam sententias provinciarum judices exsequantur, tamquam ex sententia cogni- toris arbitri fuerint attributi’).