DIASPORA 105
——
organization of the cities in Western Asia Minor the Jews amongst others received the rights of citizenship. It is wrong, indeed, to refer the atrois in the above quotation to the Jews; it really stands for the Ionians. But the context of the passage makes it probable that at the same time with the Ionians the Jews also obtained the citizenship, and that in the time of Agrippa the non-Jewish inhabitants demanded the sole pos- session of this for themselves (so also Ramsay, Expositor, Feb. 1902, pp. 92-95). At all events, in the time of Josephus the Jews in Ephesus and in the rest of Ionia possessed the rights of citizens (c. Apion. ii, 4[Niese, § 39]: of év Edéow cal kara hv GAAnv "Iwviay rots avOuvyeréor monlras Omwvunotor, TovTo wapacxdvrwy avrois Tay diadéxwr). Incidentally we learn that they enjoyed the citizenship in Sardis also (Ant. XIv. x. 24), and even outside Asia Minor, at Cyrene (ib. XVI. vi. 1).
Wherever the Jews had the rights of citizen- ship, they must in their totality have formed a gud by themselves. For the citizens of Greek towns were divided into ¢vdai, which also practised their own special religious cults. On the latter ground it is inconceivable that an individual Jew, if he desired to remain a Jew at all and to adhere to his religion, could hold the citizenship in a Greek town (attention has been called to this point especially by Ramsay, Expositor, Jan. 1902, pp. 22-29). Only where a considerable number of Jews formed a ¢vA7 of their own, on the same foot- ing as the other ¢vdal, could they be citizens. If then St. Paul was a citizen of Tarsus (Ac 21%), we must conclude that the Jews in general who were settled there possessed the citizenship. Ramsay (Z.c. pp. 29-33) suggests that they may have ob- tained it on the occasion of the rearranging of the constitution of the city by Antiochus Iv. about the year B.C. 170. This appears, however, very im- probable in view of the hostility of Antiochus to the Jews.
Even when the Jews formed a ¢v)7 of their own, they found themselves, as citizens of a Greek town, in a self-contradictory position. They had to take their part in municipal business. But this in- cluded, amongst other things, the care of the native religious cults, a duty towards which the Jews were compelled to maintain a uniformly passive relation. And this passivity was a con- stant ground of complaint on the part of their heathen fellow-citizens. If they desired to be citizens, they must also honour the gods of the city. Such was the demand made by the repre- sentatives of the Ionian cities when they brought their complaint against the Jews before Agrippa (Ant. XIL iii. 2: d&iotvrwr, el cvyyevets elow advrois *Iovdator, c€BerOa Tos airav Oeots). The same view was taken everywhere in the Greek cities. Hence it is quite intelligible that the Jews should have been most exposed to the dislike, nay the hatred and persecution, of the heathen inhabitants just in those places where they possessed the citizen- ship. So it was, for instance, at Alexandria (BJ II. xviii. 7, persecution under Caligula), Antioch (BJ vil. ili. 3-4, v. 2), the cities of the Ionian coast (Ant. XII. iil. 2); and the same was the case at Ceesarea in Palestine, where they had obtained, through Herod the Great, the icorodrela (Ant. XX. viii. 7, 9, BJ I. xiii. 7, xiv. 4-5, xviii. 1), Every- where it was only the superior authority of the Roman imperiwm that protected them in the en- joyment of the privileges that were recognized as belonging to them.
In addition to the local franchise, not a few of the Jews of the Diaspora possessed also the Romaw citizenship. At Rome many of them had _ the degree of citizenship enjoyed by freedmen (liber- tint), for a large proportion of the community was
106 DIASPORA
DIASPORA
Se A a TL eee
made up of the descendants of those prisoners of war who were brought to Rome by Pompey and sold as slaves, but afterwards manumitted (Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, § 23 [ed. Mangey, ii. 568 f.]). This citizenship was, indeed, not a complete but a limited one (Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, iii, 1, 420-457).—In Asia many Jews would ap- pear to have been possessed of Roman citizenship : so, for instance, at Ephesus (Ant. XIv. x. 13, 16, 19), Sardis (2d. 17), Delos (tb. 14), in general (id. 18). Hence it is not surprising to find St. Paul also in possession of it (Ac 16° 2275-9 2377), We are not, indeed, aware how the Jews attained to this rank.
The advantages which accompanied the posses- sion of Roman citizenship were very consider- able. The possessor was exempt from degrading punishments such as scourging (Ac 167% 2225.) and crucifixion. He had also the right not only to appeal to the Emperor against a judgment that had been pronounced, but to ‘call upon’ the Emperor at the very commencement of the pro- cess and at every stage of it, de. to demand that the examination should be conducted at Rome, and judgment given by the Emperor himself (Ac Q5lo#. 21 9632; cf. Mommsen in Ztschr. f. Neutest. Wissenschafé, ii. [1901] 90-66). Of one important right the Jews made no use. While they were entitled as Roman citizens to bring civil processes before the special tribunals consisting of Roman citizens, which were found everywhere in the pro- vinces, they preferred to have them decided by the courts belonging to their own communities (AITO 2810 Be, A)