Was Jerusalem a 'Polis'?

Author(s): V. A. TCHERIKOVER
Source: Israel Exploration Journal , 1964, Vol. 14, No. 1/2 (1964), pp. 61-78
Published by: Israel Exploration Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27924964

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Israel Exploration Journal

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Was Jerusalem afPolis'?*
V. A. TCHERIKOVER

Most historians dealing with Jerusalem's legal-political status at the begin

ning of the Roman period hold it to have been a polis on the Greek pattern.
Sch?rer writes: Only one city in Judea was a polis by Rom an-Hellenistic
standards, and this was Jerusalem.'1 Zucker says that a 'Greek municipal sys
tem' existed in Jerusalem 'during its last decades'.2 Schalit thinks that 'all the
evidence is in favour of Jerusalem being a in the Hellenistic sense'.3
Allon writes: 'The existence in Jerusalem of a municipal leadership organis
ed Hellenistically is beyond doubt.'4 Other scholars such as B?chler, Walter
Otto, and Dessau have expressed similar opinions.
This unanimity seems to break down as scholars penetrate deeper into this
problem. Who was it that made Jerusalem a Greek polis? Zucker and Allon
think that it was Herod, whereas Dessau thinks that the city council was found
ed in Jerusalem by Agrippa I.5 What were the territorial boundaries of this
polis? Possibly they only included the close vicinity of the city; yet Sch?rer
thinks that Jerusalem ruled over the whole of Judea, and Schalit says that Jeru
salem 'was the only polis with authority over the entire country' (i. e. its Jew
ish part). Differences grow more serious when it comes to assessing the role
of the ? , the city council of Jerusalem: this was the central political in
stitution in the Greek city. B?chler distinguishes three institutions with differ
ent authority in Jerusalem: (a) the Great Beth-Din in Lishkath ha-Gazith (cham
ber of hewn stones), invested with authority to rule in matters of religion
and tradition, which consisted of rabbinical scholars ; (b) the Sanh?drin, head
ed by the High Priest, which dealt with political affairs; (c) the Jerusalem

* This paper was first published in El 1 ( 1951), pp. 94-101 (Hebrew). Republished in V. A.
Tcherikover: The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World, Jerusalem, 1961 (Hebrew).
1 E. Sch?rer: Geschichte des judischen Volkes, II, 4th ed., Leipzig, 1907, p. 235.
* H. Zucker: Studien zur j?dischen Selbstverwaltung im Altertum, Berlin, 1936, p. 68.
" A. Schallt: Roman Rule in Palestine, Jerusalem, 1937, p*38 (Hebrew).
* G. ?llon: r?"****>?, Tarbiz 13 (1942), p. 18 (Hebrew).
? , Denan: Geschichte der r?mischen Kaiserzeit, II, Berlin, 1930, p. 795.
61

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 V. A. TCHERIKOVER

City Council.* Sch?rer (p. 246) disagrees with him, asserting that all three func
tions were performed by one institution. Zucker (e. g. pp.79,88) distinguishes
between the Great Beth-Din (which he regards as a sequel to the Hellenistic
elders' council) and the Jerusalem city council : as for the Sanh?drin, it was not a
permanent institution, but an assembly of respectable elders, or a provisional
court assembled from time to time for debate and discussion. Allon claims
that Herod abolished the Sanh?drin and substituted the Greek city council
for it; that after Herod's death and the exile of Archelaus 'the situation actually
(Allon's italics) was restored... the Sanh?drin had authority over the whole
country... but its form, that of a Boule, o?ce it was established, was not changed*
(i.e. the Sanh?drin was the Boule).7 All these difficulties induce scholars to admit
that the juridical situation in Roman Jerusalem was fairly complicated. Allon
speaks of a 'confusing reality' created in Jerusalem as a result of political
changes from Herod's time onwards ; Zucker, too, admits that our sources do not
suffice to ascertain the importance of the Jerusalem city council as an historical
factor, or whether it ever was one ; there is no doubt, however, that in the
Great Beth-Din a traditional Jewish institution was preserved: 'Hellenistic
municipal law was thus adapted to the requirements of the temple city (Tempel
stadt) Jerusalem' (pp. 78-79). Hence the oversimplified assumption of a
'Hellenistic regime' in Jerusalem is highly questionable and cannot solve the
numerous problems connected with the internal structure of the city. This
unclear situation forces us to tackle the problem anew, examining first the
fundamental assumption about tbe existence of a Hellenistic system in
Jerusalem.
What supports the assumption that Jerusalem was a Greek polis ? The
chief piece of evidence is Claudius' letter to the people of Jerusalem : it was
addressed to the 'archons, boule, and demos' of Jerusalem, as was the customary
address of every Greek polis.8 The emperor's administration in Rome, it is

* A. B?chler: Das Synedrion in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-Din in der Quaderkammer des Jeru
salemischen Tempels, Wien, 1902.
' Allon, cp. cit. (above, . 4), p. 20. In a private conversation with Jhe late Mr. Gedaliah Allon, a
short time before his death, I learned from him a rather important piece of information concerning
these problems, and he added some new arguments supporting his views.
? e ?oi/Af) . Cf. Sch?rer, op. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 235; Zucker, op. cit (above,
n. 2), pp. 68, 76; Schalit, op. cit. (above, n. 3), p. 123; W.Otto: Her?des, 1913, p. 119. Instances
of this Roman formula of addressing Greek cities are very numerous; cf. for instance F. F. Abbott
and A. C. Johnson: Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, Princeton, 1926, Nos. 30, 35, 36,
54, 68, 71, 75, 76, 80, 82, 83 etc.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS*? 63
argued, must have known the juridical status of each town in the empire ;
hence this is convincing proof that a Hellenistic regime existed in Jerusalem.
Further proof is supplied by Josephus and the New Testament Josephus men
tions the city council (War II, 331, 336; V, 144, 532, VI, 354), and the
counsellors (? e a ) are mentioned both in Josephus (War II, 405) and
in the New Testament (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:50).9 The of Jerusalem
is also mentioned a number of times in Josephus ; so are the a e . This
constitutes the proof for the existence of Hellenistic institutions in Roman
Jerusalem.
It is clear that the scholars arguing thus rest their proof on the terminology
of our sources as decisive evidence for the existence of certain political institu
tions. However, this is no method for deriving indisputable conclusions. We
must first distinguish between various sources. Official documents are most
reliable; therefore, Claudius* letter must be dealt with seriously. In literary
sources, however, legal terminology is not always reliable ; its reliability de
pends on the sense of responsibility, scientific conscience, and legal discern
ment of the writer. Our chief literary source ? Josephus ? is remarkably
unclear and inaccurate when he uses political-legal terminology (we shall
discuss this in detail below). Furthermore, we must not forget that our sources
are mainly Greek, using Hellenistic terminology even where they are not dealing
with Hellenistic reality. It may well be, for instance, that the Sanh?drin was
called 'boule' by the Greeks ; this does not imply that it was indeed a council
organized on the Greek pattern (this too will be discussed below). The legal
political terminology of our sources thus has no decisive value and can only be
used as supporting evidence where it agrees with historical reality. We must
therefore first investigate the historical reality of Jerusalem under the Roman
procurators.
By the beginning of Roman rule in the east, the political independence of
the Greek polis had died a natural death. During the classical Greek period
each polis was a miniature state with slogans of 'freedom and autonomy'. From
the Hellenistic period onwards, the 'freedom' of the city was only its freedom
not to pay taxes and not to feed and lodge the king's soldiers; its 'autonomy*
was merely its right to manage its municipal affairs freely Now as before, the

Allon, op. cit. (above, . 7), p. 3, . 12 quotes also two passages from talmudic literature {Ekba
Rabbati 81 ard Talmud Yerusbalmi, Taaniyot 6% 71, 84) where the bouleutai of Jerusalem are
mentioned.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
64 V. A. TCHBRIKOVER

management of affairs was in the hands of municipal institutions and officials:

the assembly (ekklesia), the council (boule), and officials (prytans, arcbons, etc.J.
The citizen body was called the demos (people) and held general meetings,
where officials were elected and decisions passed on matters of principle ; cur
rent affairs were managed by the council (which was, generally, changed
annually) and the officials (also elected for short periods). Hence the internal
structure of the polis had not changed ; it was the social composition of the
citizen body which gradually altered its character. This was due to various
factors, such as the founding of new Greek cities in the east, Hellenization of
ancient oriental cities, etc. Roman conquest added the decisive factor, namely
Rome's desire to establish its rule in the east on the (financially) stable founda
tion of the urban population. The picture produced by these changes is varie
gated and differs in different places and times. It was a period of transition
from the complete freedom of the polis in classical Greece to the complete
subjection of the city in the late Roman Empire. Democracy declined: the demoS
no longer consisted of so many citizens, and their actual citizenship was
restricted by a property census. The wealthy citizens gradually increased their
control of city affairs until they took over the management completely. The
demos consequently declined in power and activity: it stopped being creative
in the life of the city and became merely a formal institution. Yet the polis
tradition kept functioning and every city had organized assemblies. The demos
was still persistently mentioned in all major decisions of the city, such as
ceremonial declarations in honour of high Roman officials, etc. The imperial
administration did not omit to include the demos in its addresses to the citizens.
Elections of the council became formal, because with their money the rich
could easily obtain the positions they wanted. The council, far from disappear
ing, assumed further power by virtue of the functions it performed for Rome.
The internal structure of the citizen body retained its traditional form: the
demos was divided into phylai (as in the classical period), and admission of
a citizen depended on his having completed his service as an ephebos. The
gymnasion and epbebeion were very important in the polis, being not only cul
tural institutions but also political stepping stones to full citizenship. We may
thus conclude that the oriental Greek polis in the transition period (end of the
Hellenistic and beginning of the Roman period) had lost its value as an inde
pendent political entity and had changed its internal form from democracy to
oligarchy; yet it retained the external framework inherited from the classical

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS*? 65
period and actually realized municipal freedom as long as it did not run
counter to the interests of the Roman rulers,10
Now we have Wxned-wirat to look for in Jerusalem, if we wish to see it as
a Greek city. We shall not search for an Athenian democracy, nor for the
10 On the social and political conditions of a Greek polis in the East during the Hellenistic and
Roman period, cf. the following: W. W. Tarn: Hellenistic Civilisation, Cambridge, 1930, 2nd ed.,
pp. 59 rT., 73 fi\, 129 fT.; Abbott and Johnson, op. cit. (above, n. 8), passim; A. H. M. Jones: The Cities
of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford, 1937, passim; idem: The Greek City from Alexander to
Justinian, Oxford, 1940, passim; Cambridge Ancient History, XI, pp. 456 6e. Tarn speaks in detail
(pp. 129 rT.) about the diversity of internal organization in eastern cities during the Hellenistic
period, which is due, in the first place, to the fact that eastern cities were assuming Greek political'
ideas and becoming ?$. It is not always possible to probe the extent to which they had accom
plished the Hellenization, and it may be assumed that the eastern nucleus survived even after the
formal act of city-founding had been completed. The Galatians, for instance, used to announce
their decisions 'on behalf of the Council and the people but it is doubtful whether they had really
changed their traditional tribal organization into the regime of a polis, so foreign to their national
past (see Jones, Eastern Roman Provinces, pp. 120fT., p. 406, nn. 18-20; cf. Cambridge Ancient
History, XI, p. 601). The change of the name of a city may serve as a decisive proof that the
Hellenization was accomplished by means of a single legal act, and had acquired an official stamp.
There were also several cities which reckoned their era according to the date of the formal act of
city-founding. An additional proof of the foundation of a Greek polis in place of an oriental town is
its right to mint its own coins. The right to mint gold and silver coins had been the kings* monopoly,
while the minting of copper coins was entrusted to the Greek cities (cf. E. J. Bickerman: Institu
tions des S?leucides, Paris, 1938, pp. 228 fT.). An oriental city which had neither changed its name
nor received the right to mint its own coins did not bear any distinct mark of Hellenization and
it is doubtful whether it had actually become a Greek polis.?On the decline of the significance of the
general demos-assembly, cf. Abbott and Johnson, op. cit. (above, n. 8), p. 75. From the instances
offered there it is clear that, notwithstanding this decline, the general assemblies persisted. During
the Roman period the magistrates were elected as previously, but the Roman government introduced
new principles into these elections in accordance with the general law of the provinces; cf. for
instance the inscription from Priene in 9 B.c. (W. Dittenbergcr: Orienti s Graces Inscriptions
Selectae, Leipzig, 1905, No. 458, lines 78 rT.). The tradition of the polis in the Near East was so
strong that even cities founded by Roman military commanders acquired the common features of a
polis (cf. Abbott and Johnson, op. cit. [above, n. 8], p. 85). Antinoopolis in Egypt, founded in A. D.
130 by the Emperor Hadrian, also had a council and general assemblies and was also divided into
phylai and demoi like a veritable Greek polis (Cambridge Ancient History, XI, p. 650). The
'transition period* had come to its end at the time of the Flavian emperors. From this time onwards
the cities in the eastern provinces were founded on new principles. They acquired many features
of the western tradition, such as a 'senate' consisting of a fixed number of senators nominated for
life, instead of a 'council' re-elected each year. The 'elders' councils'?gerousiai?existed in manr
cities, as in Alexandria (see A. R. von Premerstein: Alexandr. Geronten vor Kaiser Gains, p. 57)
Hence we cannot rely upon the picture of the Bithynian cities depicted in Pliny's well-known letters
to Trajan, when evaluating the situation of Jerusalem under Herod and the procurators.?On the
educational institutions in Greek cities (gymnasion, epbebeion) see Jones, Greek City, pp. 220 ?.;
on the connection between the education in an epbebeion and the entrance of a young man into the
citizen body see Claudius* letter to the Alexandrians in C C Edgar and A. S. Hunt: Select Papyri,
London, 1956, No. 212, lines 53 fT Cf. R. Taubenschlag: The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the
Light of the Papyri, II, Warszawa, 1955, pp. 23 #.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
66 V. A. TCHERIKOVER

freedom of diplomatic negotiations with foreign powers without permission

from the Roman procurator, nor for an independent military organization. We
would agree that the wealthy Jerusalemites knew how to grab power, and that
municipal positions were constantly theirs. However, if we wish to see
Jerusalem as a polis, we must require the existence of a demos, a citizen body
gathering at fixed times and places for fixed purposes (the election of officials,
etc.), and of a council, changing frequently, and of officials elected by the
people. We must also require the existence of a gymnasion and an ephebeion
as municipal educational institutions ?o train young people to Greek citizen
life. In the absence of all these institutions,* no city may be considered a polis.
Let us consider which of these really existed in Jerusalem at that time.
We shall start with the demos. Did one exist in Jerusalem ? If we trust Josephus,
it did, and the usual assemblies (ekklesiai) were held. But careful examination
shows Josephus' style as misleading. He uses 'demos' to designate both the
mob in the streets (War II, 263, 297) and the people coming to the assem
blies {War II, 41l). Throughout the story of the rise of the rebellion in Warp
Josephus indiscriminately uses the nouns and , although demos
is a specific legal term (the citizen body), whereas plethos means a crowd, mob
etc.11 When he relates the events after the Romans had been expelled from
Jerusalem, Josephus keeps confusing his legal terminology (although it was
just then that the Zealots had endowed the assemblies in Jerusalem with a new
form): in War IV, 162, Josephus speaks of a plethos coming to the ekklesia, and
in Life (309 f. and 315) he again uses demos and plethos indiscriminately. He is
particularly fond of using demos for the quiet and peaceful Jerusalem popula
tion, who opposed the Zealots (e.g. IV, 354-5; V, 251 etc.), although it is
more reasonable to assume that, under the Zealots, the assemblies in Jerusalem
were influenced by their spirit and teachings. Thus it is clear that Josephus did
not use demos in the political-legal sense, but in its most general sense.12

u Cf. War II, 344 with 405: both passages are concerned with the same general assembly, yet in one
Josephus uses the term demos and in the other plethos.
13 It should be assumed that the exaggerated use of the term demos in War is due to the influence
of one of Josephus' Greek assistants ( e ) who impressed their fiterary style on Josephus' books,
especially War. Cf. H. St. John Thackeray: Josephus, the Man and the Historian, New York, 1929,
pp. 100 ff. To those assistants should also be ascribed the expressions a {War IV, 336) and
(War IV, 397, 510) and the passages speaking of the high priest Hanan as of a a*
a (War IV, 320) and of Gorion as of a * ! a a * e e v&<rr?s(War IV,
358). All this talk about the 'democratic* features of Jerusalem's priests and wealthy citizens is
merely rhetorical embellishment.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS? 67
Nevertheless there was a 'people* in Jerusalem which came to assemblies
ahd made resolutions: this 'people', however, was nothing like the demos of
the Greek polis. As early as Ezra and Nehemiah the people used to gather for
important events, such as the decision on divorcing all foreign wives, or sealing
of the 'Covenant', but there was no regularity about these meetings. The
personal composition of these assemblies was multifarious. Not only did 'the
whole people' assemble (Ezra 10:9; 10:14; Neh. 8:1; 9:l), but there were
also women and children among them (Ezra 10:1,'... there assembled unto him
out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children*; cf.
Neh. 10:29). There was nothing in common between these multitudinous
congregations, assembled but rarely to confirm certain government actions,
and the demos assemblies which were part of the orderly and permanent munic
ipal constitution. In later times, too, the people used to assemble for major
decisions, but these assemblies were only temporary : thus the 'people' ( )
of Jerusalem was summoned to an assembly ( a) by Joseph the Tobiad
owing to ? dispute between the high priest, Onias II, and the Ptolemaic govern
ment (Antiquities XII, 164). The Great Synagogue, assembled on the 18th
day of Elul 140 B.c., which consisted of the 'priests and the people and the
heads of the nation and elders' (l Mace. 14:28), had one single purpose?to
confirm the rule of Simon the Hasmonean. Under Herod the people were
often summoned to assemblies, but they only had to listen to the king's vari
ous declarations (A? XV, 381; ibid., 393 = War I, 550; Ant. XVI, 62f.;
ibid., 132 f.); the assemblies were usually held in the Temple and people from
outside Jerusalem also attended (Ant. XVI, 62). After Herod, too, the people
kept gathering in the Temple (especially during the great feasts) and not in
frequently did such gatherings terminate in violent rebellious outbursts (Ant.
XVII, 200 f.; ibid.,254 f., etc.). Clearly such assemblies had no legal-constitu
tional function. There was no resemblance between the people* in Jerusalem
and the demos of the Greek polis.
Now we come to the council. Josephus uses the noun ? (boule, council)
only in War, in Antiquities the supreme institution existing in Jerusalem at the
time of Herod is called Sanh?drin, (Ant. XIV, 168, 175; XV, 173),
and in Life (the period of the rebellion) the Sanh?drin is mentioned once ( 62),
whereas he uses in all other places(65, 72, 190, 254, 309, 341, 393).
Did Josephus intend to be precise in his use of legal terminology when he was
speaking of the council? In one place it seems he did. In War II, 405, he speaks

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
68 V. A. TCHERIKOVER

of the 'archons and councillors', a e a ? e a , who left Jerusalem

to collect taxes for the emperor 'from the villages', and in II, 407, ? about
King Agrippa,who sent'the archons along with the officials' a a
a a a a to the procurator in Caesarea, to help him collect
the taxes from the a. Clearly, the first allusion is to the villages near
Jerusalem, and the second to the whole country. Since Josephus mentions
the councillors only in the first, it seems likely that he wanted to emphasize
the authority of the city council to rule over the Jerusalem vicinity only, from
which we may conclude that a municipal council indeed existed in Jerusalem,
which had similar authority to that of the boule of the Greek polis. But we
must question whether Josephus consciously intended to use precise legal
terminology elsewhere. It is easy to see that this is not so. In War II, 331, he
speaks of the procurator Florus who was about to leave Jerusalem and
summoned the high priests and the council to inform them of his decision; he
added that he intended to give them a sufficient number of soldiers for protec
tion. It thus appears that the high priests and the council were the two highest
authorities in Jerusalem representing the Jewish population before the Roman
rulers. Yet in War II, 301 and 318, the same picture is presented (the official
representative of Jerusalem before the procurator). Here, however, Josephus
uses different terminology: in the first place he speaks of the high priests and
rulers and honourable citizens ( e a e e a a e -
a e ) and in the second, of the high priests and honourable
citizens (a e e ). By comparing these two texts with
War II, 331, it follows that the Jerusalem council was identified (by Josephus)
with the a and the . But the a are sent in War II, 407,
to collect taxes from the whole country, not only from the villages near
Jerusalem. We must deduce that he did not intend at all to distinguish between
the councillors and the rulers, as was assumed above, but used various terms
indiscriminately. He viewed the councillors as part of the Jerusalem aristocracy
and was not too careful in choosing the right terms in referring to them.13

u The a mentioned in Ant. XX, 194 constitute a separate problem. The dekaprotoi were
known as a liturgical office in Hellenistic cities from the end of the first century; in the second and
third the dekaprotoi had become a local city committee responsible for the collection of taxes and
their delivery to the Roman government. See Jones, Greek City (above, n. 10), pp. 119, 127; Abbott
and Johnson, op. cit. (above, n. 8), pp. 94, 113, 222, 410. In the West the Ten First' (decemprimi)
were already known in Cicero's time; cf. A. F. Pauly - G. Wissowa: Real-Encyclop?die der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1901, s.v. decemprimi. Were the dekaprotoi of Jerusalem also a

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS*? 69
However, can we rely on Josephus to determine the territorial boundaries
of the area where thejerusalem council's authority was valid? In War II, 2 7 3, the
procurator Albinus released from gaol the robbers who had been imprisoned
each by a local council (Cm? a ' a ? ). We must conclude
(a) that local councils were scattered all over the Jewish part of the country,
probably in accordance with the division of the country into administrative
distrias (cf. War III, 51 f.), and (b) that Josephus called them ? a , ?s he
also called the Jerusalem council, although no one would suggest that these
towns were organized like Greek e . If this is so, then the Jerusalem council
must have had its authority restricted to the area of Jerusalem and its vicinity.
Yet that is not the case. In War V, 532, the secretary of thejerusalem council
is said to have been a native of a , which is nothing but Emmaus, the
present Tmwas, near La trun, and not Motza-Colonia near Jerusalem.14 We
know another councillor, Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50-51 ;
cf. Matt. 25:57); hence the Arimathea area was also included in the Jerusalem
a, which thus descended from the mountains of Judea to the plain.15
Further information in Josephus shows the authority of the Jerusalem council
to have been even more extensive. In War II, 3 3 6, he speaks of the high priests
who with the rulersand council went to Jamnia(Yavneh) to greet King Agrippa.
The representatives of the nation could come out to meet the king wherever
they wanted ; but what business had the Jerusalem city council to leave the city

committee possessing certain authority? The answer to this question is supplied by Josephus himself
when speaking about the dekaprotoi in Tiberias (Life 57, 13; War II, 639): be calls them a...
ol a (War II, 639) ; by comparing the parallel in Life 168: a - * a* w?
find that here was meant not a finance committee (or a committee haying any other authority) of the
city council, but the ten most eminent citizens (probably the most distinguished members of the
council). Thus, in this early period (the middle of the first century), the dekaprotia. was taking
its first steps, and had not acquired as yet the permanent form of a finance committee; the dekaprotoi
were performing various functions by virtue of being the most wealthy and distinguished men in
the city. The Ten' of Jerusalem, too, do not constitute an institution with definite functions; accord
ing to Josephus, they went to Rome on a diplomatic mission?to settle the conflict which broke
out between King Agrippa II and the elders of the city. Therefore, I think that the mentioning of
the dekaprotoi cannot serve as a proof of the existence of a city council in Jerusalem on the Greek
pattern; furthermore, the Ten First' need not necessarily have been members of the council. For
this question, see Abbott and Johnson, op. cit., p. 113; cf. Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., ?. v. ? a .
Josephus does not say this either: those who send the Ten' to Rome are *,
i.e. the Jerusalem aristocracy in general, not the council.
14 For this information my thanks are due to Prof. B. Mazar On 'Imwas (Emmaus) cf. M. Avi
Yonah: Historical Geography of Palestine, Jerusalem, 1949, p. 95 (Hebrew)
* Here, according to Eusebius and Hieronymus, is meant Arimathea, situated north-east of Lydda.
Cf. Sch?rer, op at (above, n 1), I, p. 533. n 23; Avi-Yonah, op cit (above, n. 14), p. 97.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 V. A. TCHERIKOVER

in order to greet the king far from the area of its authority? This behaviour may
be explained only if we assume that Jamnia was also included in this area;
thus thejerusalemite a extended to the sea-shore; Josephus does not supply
an accurate definition of the area of thejerusalemite a? If we consider all
the above information: the origin of some of the councillors, the journey of
the entire council to the sea-shore, in certain cases, the collection of taxes in the
whole country by the rulers who are identified by Josephus, among others,
with the councillors ? we cannot possibly escape the conclusion that the
authority of the Jerusalem council extended to the farthest boundaries of Jewish
territory, which in Hellenistic terminology would mean that the a of the
Jerusalem polis included the whole of Jewish Palestine.16
If this is so, however, what was the relationship between the council and
the Sanh?drin? We have concluded that the authority of the Jerusalem council
was recognized in the whole of Jewish territory, that this institution repre
sented the Jews before the Roman authorities, collected taxes, negotiated with
King Agrippa and the Roman governor, and was in charge of the Jerusalem
garrison during the procurator's absence. In the two cases where Josephus
refers to the council as an integral political body (not as separate bouleutat),
he mentions it along with the high priests {War II, 331, 336) and it is clear
that together they represent the Jewish authorities ; but the New Testament
says exactly the same about the Sanh?drin as Josephus says about the council.
Here, too, the Sanh?drin is almost invariably mentioned along with the high
priests, constituting together the supreme Jewish authority (Matt. 26:59 =
Mark l4:55=Luke 22:66; Mark 15:1; Acts 5:21 ; ibid. 20; 22:30); the
Roman authorities recognized it as the official representative of the Jewish
people and addressed it concerning Jewish affairs (Acts 22: 30); the Sanh?
drin was invested with the authority to rule in criminal cases, to imprison and
release people (Acts 5: 21 ; cf. Josephus' story in War II, 273 about the local
councils-?a fortiori when we are dealing with the Jerusalem council). All this
proves beyond any doubt that the functions of the Jerusalem city council in

19 Cf. above, the opinions of Sch?rer and Schallt; Otto, op. cit. (above, n. 8), p. 117, note. This
conclusion does not contradict the division of Judea into eleven administrative districts, as related
by Josephus in War III, 51 f. Josephus himself emphasizes that 'Jerusalem controlled them all, being
the capital (?a E ). Immediately after the eleven districts, Josephus mentions Jaffa and Jamnia,
as well as places with Jewish population to the north of Palestine, although these places did not
belong to Judea administratively. In this way Josephus produces an impression that Jerusalem con
trolled the whole of the Jewish territory.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS'? 71
Josephus and of the Sanh?drin in the New Testament are almost identical.
Since we cannot assume that two different institutions with identical func
tions existed in Jerusalem at the same time, we must conclude that the coun
cil in Josephus and the Sanh?drin in the New Testament were one and the -
same institution. If so, then the council no longer represents Jerusalem only,
but the whole nation, and its authority is not restricted to municipal func
tions. From the New Testament we learn that the Sanh?drin was a religious
court consisting of the Jerusalem aristocracy (the Sadducees) and scholars
(Pharisees); (see Acts 23:6f.; cf. ibid. 5:34). This quality of the Sanh?drin
certainly does not suit any Hellenistic municipal institution.17

" We have seen that the Sanh?drin actually was the city council; is it perhaps also identical with
the Great Beth-Din? On this question opinions are divided. As said above, B?chler sought to
distinguish three institutions: the Great Beth-Diii, the Sanh?drin, and the Council. His assumption
is repeated by many scholars, with slight or important variations; cf. for instance H. Albeck: Zion
8 (1943), pp. 165 ff. (Hebrew), who distinguishes between the Sanh?drin, the Great Beth-Din, and
several other Sanh?drins, which were private councils of the rulers; S. Zeitlin: Jewish Quarterly
Review 36 (1945), pp. 109 ff.; ibid. 37 (1946) pp. 189 ff., distinguishes between the Beth-Din for
religious affairs (which in his opinion was called Sanh?drin only after A. D. 70) and political coun
cils mentioned in Josephus and in the New Testament; L. Finkelstein: The Pharisees and the Men of
the Great Synagogue (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, XV),
New York, 1950 (Hebrew) distinguishes between the Sanh?drin, headed by the high priest, and
the Beth-Din of the Pharisees, headed by the president; etc. This is not the place for a detailed
analysis of this complicated question; my intention is only to note the essence of my approach to
the problem. In my opinion the Sanh?drin and the great Beth-Din are one and the same institution,
and there are three arguments in favour of this assumption: (1) our sources use the term Sanh?drin
to indicate both the Great Beth-Din and the council of the high priest; (2) the religious-legjal
situation in Israel does not allow for any division of authority between institutions with political
functions on the one hand and religious functions on the other. The law of the Torah, which is the
basic law of the people of Israel, does not distinguish between politics and religion: (3) those
learned in the Torah (Pharisees, scribes) also participated in the Sanh?drin and certainly constituted
the majority of the members of the Great Beth-Din. To support this assumption would, of course,
require a special study. Zucker (op. cit. [above, n. 2], pp. 62 ff., 88 ff., etc.) regards the Great Beth
Din as a direct continuation of the elders' council (gerousia)t while the Sanh?drin was not a per
manent institution. In his opinion the term 'Sanh?drin' was used with regard to every institution
whose role was to offer counsel or to issue resolutions, and in particular with regard to the Beth
Din (p. 54); as for the Sanh?drin in Herod's time and the Sanh?drin mentioned in the New
Testament, they were merely councils or various Beth-Dins summoned by the initiative of the king
(Herod), or of the high priest, for a particular action, and their composition varies according to
the demand of the initiator. H. Albeck and S. Zeitlin, in their papers mentioned above, express
similar opinions. This assumption is well-founded, yet it seems to me that we should accept it with
a certain reserve and not exaggerate it by denying the very existence of the Sanh?drin as a central
institution. It is true indeed that 'Sanh?drin' could have been used as a name for every council and
every Beth-Din, cf. E. J. Bickerman: Zion N.S. 3 (1938), pp. 356ff (Hebrew), S. B. Hoenig:
Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946), pp. 179 ff.; but this is no proof that the numerous texts in our
sources mentioning the 'Sanh?drin' refer to such councils- or temporary courts of justice, and we

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 V. A. TCHERIKOVER

We thus arrive at the conclusion that, although Josephus uses the Greek
noun ? to designate the supreme institution of the Jewish people under
Roman rule, and its members are referred to as bouleutai not only in Josephus
but also in other sources, actually this was not a new municipal institution
on a Hellenistic pattern, but the traditional Jewish body that had existed
under different names throughout the period of the Second Temple. The first
allusions to it are to be found in Ezra and Nehemiah : I am referring to the
'nobles and rulers' mentioned frequently in Nehemiah. These were men of
great political influence, owing to their wealth and high position in Jerusalem
society. These nobles and rulers were the forerunners of the elders' council
Jcnown under the Greek namegerousia from the year 200 onward.18 The elders'
council together with the high priest represented the people of Israel politi
cally and it was the supreme Jewish authority in home affairs. During the
Hasmonean period it gave way to a more extensive institution, Ipever ha
Yehudim (or possibly a council representing the hever). From the end of the
reign of John Hyrcanus this institution was filled with Sadducees, the repres
entatives of the Jewish aristocracy, who supported the ideals of the state and
of wars of conquest; but from the days of Queen Salome Alexandra, the
Pharisees -? the scholars who were closer to the lower classes <? replaced them.
At the beginning of the Roman period the Greek name Sanh?drin ( )
was applied specifically to this institution; and the Sanh?drin, like the hever
(or the ipever council) during the Hasmonean period, also coftsisted of the

have to examine each text separately. Perhaps it will be right to introduce the following rule to
distinguish between the central Sanh?drin and the temporary Sanh?drins: if the term 'Sanh?drin* is
accompanied by a plural noun which defines the nature of its members (such as . or .
or . ), the reference is to a council or a Beth-Din especially arranged in order
to deal with some particular case. We find many such references in Herod's time (see a list of places
in Otto, op. cit. [above, n. 8], p. 86, n. 11).Places dealing with the formation of the Sanh?drin (Ant.
XX, 200, 216: ^ ) also refer to such specific cases since the expression a a a
is a technical term for the formation of various courts (such is the usage of this expression in the
papyri; cf. for instance J. G. Smyly: Greek Papyri from Gurob, Dublin, 1921, No. 2, lines 6, 9).
Yet our sources often speak of the Sanh?drin without any additional definition; for instance in
Ant. XV, 173 (Herod's time), and many times in the New Testament or in the Mishnah (the 'Great
Sanh?drin' or simply 'Sanh?drin' ? Great Beth-Din; see Mishnah, Sanh?drin I, 6; IV, 3; Midot
V, 4; Sotah IX, 11, Kiddushim IV, 3). We have to assume that such places refer to the main
Sanh?drin, i.e. the highest court of the people of Israel.
u The gerousia is mentioned for the first time in the proclamation of Antiochus III of Syria in which
he determined the juridical status of Jerusalem (Ant. XII, 142). It is mentioned several times
during the rule of the Hellenized priests, and at the same time of the first Hasmoneans; for these
texts sec Sch?rer, op. est. (above, n. 1), II, p. 241.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS*? 73
Jewish aristocracy and scholars. During Herod's time the Sanh?drin lost its
political power and became a kind of Supreme Court, dealing mainly with
religious matters.19 After Herod's death it regained some of its previous
importance and under the procurators it again appears as a supreme Jewish
institution representing (along with the high priests) the Jewish authority vis-?
vis the Roman authorities, and ruling in home affairs. As we have seen above,
in the Roman period the Sanh?drin consisted of Pharisees and Sadducees, i. e.
the scholars and Jewish aristocracy, and, needless to say, there was nothing
in common between this traditional Jewish institution and the Greek boule.
Now, who are the arcbons? Our sources (the New Testament and mainly
Josephus) indiscriminately use the names archons, high priests, ,
a , etc. It is noteworthy that our sources always mention the high
priests in the plural : therefore, they are not referring to the priest heading the
government in a certain year, but to some group connected with it. Moreover,
the sources do not emphasize the religious-social role of the high priests;
instead they constantly emphasize their political role. Thus we come to the
conclusion that the rulers in Jewish Jerusalem were descended from high
priestly families and that there was no great difference between the archons
and the high priests.20 We observe that the regime in Jerusalem had nothing in
common with that of a Greek polis, where the magistrates and the priests of
the official cult of the city constituted two separate authorities. Moreover, we
have seen above that the Greek polis in this period was still proclaiming the
principle of election of the rulers and their responsibility before the demos,
while it is quite clear that the 'high priests' were not elected as archons but
nominated (perhaps by the high priest then in office) by virtue of belonging

19 The character of the Sanh?drin in Herod's time may be understood by comparing the Sanh?drin
at the time of the Hasmoneans with that at the time of the procurators (as known from the New
Testament and from the Mishnah): the first is the highest political council dealing with all state
affairs (its name, hever ha-Ye h ud? m, appears in coin legends), while the second is essentially a
high court for political-religious affairs. The transition from a political council to a Beth-Din, which
mainly dealt with religious affairs, took place between the time of Alexander Jannaeus and that of
the procurators, i.e. towards the end of the Hasmonean rule and under Herod.?For the question
of the political role of the Sanh?drin, cf. G. ?llon, Zion N.S. 3 (1938), p. 300 (Hebrew); J. Klaus
ner: History of the Second Temple Period, III, Jerusalem, 1949, pp. 96ff. (Hebrew).
" Zucker, op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 77 ff., also identifies the term a a, and a ?pd* and there
is some reason for such an assumption. Although it is possible that, at times, members of wealthy
secular families of Jerusalem could have penetrated into the ranks of the archons, there is no doubt
that the main power was always concentrated in the hands of the priests.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 74 V. . TCHBRIKOVER

to the noble families of various offices connected with the Temple, as befits
a 'theocratic' state. This situation is reflected in the well-known beraitha which

depicts the Jewish government, before its decline, as the absolute rule of the
priestly oligarchy. This is also confirmed by the fact that the Zealots, imme
diately after the revolution, opened the office of the high priest to the whole
priestly class by introducing the election of the high priest by lot.21 Here aga
we have before us an early tradition : the beginning of the great power of the
high priest can be traced back to the time soon after the return from the
Exile, and in particular after the unsuccessful attempt of Zerubabel to restore
David's dynasty to the throne.
It follows that under the procurators 'archons', a 'boule', and a 'demos' did
exist in Jerusalem, but the archons were not archons in the Greek sense, nor
was the boule a boule, nor the demos a demos. Throughout, the Greek names, bor
rowed from the Hellenistic world, reflected ancient Jewish institutions the product of
the evolution of the Jewish people through the ages. As happens so frequently in the
East, a new western shell enclosed the old eastern grain. It is easy to explain
why our sources used Greek names to denote Jewish institutions : they were
mostly written for the Greek reader. Naturally they used terms intelligible to
such readers. Moreover, it may be assumed that a certain part of the population
in Jerusalem?Greeks, Romans, and Jews in permanent contact with them?
were accustomed to call the Sanh?drin a 'boule' and the high priest 'archons',
as, in fact, the Sanh?drin was the highest council of the Jews, and the high
priests did actually function as rulers. Jewish Jerusalem itself, at the end of
a long and natural development over many generations, had acquired a certain
political form which did not differ significantly from the well-known pattern
of the Greek polis. Jerusalem, like every Greek polis, ruled over the surrounding
area; it had a class of high officials who ruled over the people, and a council
consisting of representatives of the city's aristocracy. At times, general assem
blies were held. This resemblance, however, was only superficial. Besides, no
one was obliged to examine the situation from a strictly juridical point of view
to show the people their terminological mistake. Indeed, that generation in
particular was prone to such mistakes, since it is not the classical period with

n Five priestly families took hold of all the offices and thus seized control over the Jerusalemite
population: They are great priests and their sons are treasurers and their sons-in-law-?their coun
sellors' (Tosefta Menahot XIII, 21 = Pesahim 57a). Josephus speaks bitterly of the elections
of the high priest by lot (War IV, 152 ff.).

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A "POLIS*? 75
which we are now dealing, but the beginning of the Roman period, i.e. a period
of transition. The Greek polis had lost much of its freshness and was already
adjusting itself to the demand of the time. The oriental city and the Greek polis
gradually drew closer, until in the period of the later Severi the difference
between them almost disappeared, since both had been turned by the Roman
government into tools for extorting taxes from its subject population.22
Greek terminology had become common in the East, and it was no longer
surprising that the imperial administration in Rome was also affected. We have
seen above that Claudius' letter to the people of Jerusalem? ' e
? ?was used by scholars as a decisive proof of the city's
Greek character. It is true that the central administration in Rome knew what

it was writing; yet it drew the information about events and institutions in
the provinces from the reports sent by local officials. As we have seen, the
procurators and other Roman officials in Jerusalem had recognized the high
priests and the Sanh?drin as the local authorities representing the Jews. Who
can assert with certitude that the Jews themselves did not call these authorities
the 'archons' and the 'council' in accordance with regular usage in the Hellen
istic East? In their footsteps the imperial administration adopted the same ter
minology. Nevertheless it knew that these terms did not suit the total situation
and therefore added to the usual address the words ' I a( a ? e . For
what purpose? Zucker (op. cit. [above, n.2], p. 77) thinks that Claudius addres
ses here the entire world Jewry. His assumption is not plausible, since the con
tents of the lettet (the question was who should keep the vestments of the
high priests) concerned the Jews of Judea only. It seems that the imperial ad
ministration understood perfectly well that the main power behind this affair
was not the polis but what stood behind it, namely the Jewish nation. Indeed
the polis is not mentioned in the letters at all ; the emperor speaks about the
nation ( e a) and bases his positive decision regarding
? An interesting example of oriental towns gradually turning into Greek cities are the metropoleis
of Egypt (i.e. the capital cities of the districts). In the Ptolemaic period and at the beginning of
the Roman period these cities were the residence of the district officials acting upon orders issued
from the centre in Alexandria. In the second century we find these archons, i.e. representatives of
the local population dealing with municipal affairs. These officials were united into a 'community
of the archons' ( a ), which actually was the city council. Hence it may be deduced
that the municipal reform of Septimius Severus, which turned the metropolis into wSAms and gave
each its council (? ), did not bring essential alterations into the internal structure of the cities.
For this question, cf. Wegener's paper in M.David et al., edit.: Symbolae ad jus et hist?ri?m anti
quitatis pertinentes, J. C. van Oven dedtcatae, Leiden, 1946, pp. 160 ff.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 V. A. TCH ERIKOVER

the vestments upon the general principle which gives each nation the right
'to perform the religious rites according to its ancestral laws' ( a a a
a a a e e ). Hence it is clear that Claudius, in speaking about the
sacred vestments, does not regard those who wear them as the archons of Jeru
salem but as representatives of the nation, just as the whole letter does not
deal with a municipal question but with one of the difficult problems concern
ing the national religious rites. This is to say that the main point of the ad
dress lies in the addendum, whereas the opening sentence is merely rhetorical
embellishment?a standard administrative practice in addressing Greek cities.
Thus the official document carries no more "decisive weight on this question
than the literary sources.
We have still to deal with a chronological question. Those who think that
Jerusalem did adopt the status of a Greek polis have to answer this: when, and
by whom, was this done? Common opinion ascribes the Hellenistic reform
policy to Herod. Some scholars think that the Sanh?drin was abolished by
Herod, and that the institution mentioned by this name in Herod's time was
no more than a temporary court of justice summoned by the king's order when
necessary. In its stead, a council on the Hellenistic pattern was substituted. I
have already mentioned above (n. 17) the general outlines of this theory, and
shall now add a few words on Herod's rule. An analysis of his general policy
cannot yield any definite conclusion : he was a despot and an absolute ruler and
tould easily have abolished any independent-minded institution; yet he would
not antagonize the Jewish population too much. Nor should his Hellenizing
tendencies be exaggerated: they were mainly political, aiming to manifest before
che external world his loyalty to Rome. Herod was willing to build Greek cities,
to settle Hellenized Syrians in them, to set up a stadium, theatre, and amphi
theatre in Jerusalem and its environs, to organize wrestling games in Jerusalem
for the international Greek world; but there is no mention anywhere of his
intention to force these Hellenistic practices on the Jews: the Kulturkampfes
not part of his political programme.23 Thus I cannot agree that Herod abolished

73 There is no resemblance whatsoever between Herod and the high*priests Jason and Menelaus,
whose cultural-political programme was the Hellenization of the Jews; cf. my paper: Antiochia in
Jerusalem, in Epstein Jubilee Volume, (Tarbiz 20 [1950]?Hebrew). Surely Herod's Hellenizing
policy had wounded the religious feelings of the Jews (see Ant. XV, 267 ff.); yet in fact Herod
had never sought to enforce Hellenization upon the Jews (he said this plainly: ? a [v. 1. ? a]
a ? a , Ant. XV, 277). At another time he even explained to the Jews that he pursued
his pro-Hellenistic policy in accordance with an explicit order from Rome (Ant. XV, 330). At times

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WAS JERUSALEM A 'POLIS*? 77
the Sanhedrin and replaced it with the Greek city council. Such a reform does
not necessarily follow from the political situation in his time. On the con
trary, it contradicts his compromise policy with the Jewish nation.
Dessau's assumption (above, p. 61, n. 5), which attributes the Hellenistic re
form to Agrippa I, is still less reasonable. This king strove hard to maintain good
relations with the Jewish religious leaders, and it would not occur to him to
undermine their traditional institutions.24 If we assume that the reform was
carried out at the time of the procurators and at their initiative, this would
again contradict Rome's policy to allow conquered peoples to 'live according
to ancestral laws'.25 It is well known that this permission was confirmed
more than once to the Jews.26 There is no reason to assume that the Roman
government, from Augustus to Claudius, acted against its own general policy
in the case of the Jews. This would also go against Augustus' attitude (see
Ant. XVI, 162 ff.). Clearly, granting Jerusalem the status of a Greek city
would have been contrary to these ancestral traditional laws.
I should like to add some arguments, of no real decisive weight, since
they are based on argumentum ex silentio, which may, however, give some ad

he saw fit to respect the opinion of the Pharisees and popular emotions, and during the construction
of the Temple strictly observed the law prohibiting the entry of non-priests into the innermost part
of the Temple (see Otto, op. cit. [above, n. 8], pp. 102 ff.; A. H. M. Jones: The Herods of Judaea,
Oxford, 1938, pp.93, 105). Otto, who regards Herod as a man devoted to Hellenistic culture and
striving to enforce it among his people (p. 107) attributes to him desires which, in my opinion, he
never had. A. Momigliano's view of Herod's activities as a superficial Hellenization (Cambridge
Ancient History, X, p. 332) seems more correct.
a4 Cf. Jones, Greek City (above, n. 10), pp. 209 ff.
* Such permission was given, for instance, to many Greek cities in Asia Minor; cf. the decisions of
the koinon of the Lykians in 89 B. c. (Abbott and Johnson, op. cit. [above, n. 8], No. 15), of Tabai
in 82 B. C. (Dittenberger, op. cit. [above, n. 10], No. 442), of Stratonikeia in c. 8? B. c. (ibid., No.
441, lines 45 ff.), of Termessos in 71 B.c. (Abbott and Johnson, op. cit., No. 19), of Pergamon
in 46 B.c. (Dittenberger, op. cit., No. 449), of Chios in A.D. 14/15 (Abbott and Johnson, op. cit.,
No. 40), of Rhodes in A.D. 51 (ibid., No. 52), and of Lagina-Stratonikeia in A. D. 96/97 (ibid.,
No. 67). From these instances (which do not exhaust the whole evidence) it may be inferred that
in principle Rome would confirm the political status of cities and people in the East, and only in
exceptional cases (usually as punishment for hostile acts) would it introduce changes.
" Cf. Ant. XIV, 195, 199, 213 ff., 223, 227, 235, 242, 246, 258, 260 ff., 263; Ant. XVI, 163, 171,
172; Ant. XIX, 283 ff-, 290, etc. As regards this question, the Romans followed the tradition of
the Hellenistic kings: cf. the declaration of Antiochus III, Ant. XII, 142. It is worth noting that
Claudius' letter (Ant. XX, 11 ff.) in which scholars see a decisive proof of the existence of a
Hellenistic regime in Jerusalem, also mentions the right of the Jews to live according to their
ancestral traditions. In speaking of the return of the vestments of the high priest to the Jews, the
emperor says that he is granting them this favour because of his desire that "every one perform his
religious practices in accordance with ancestral tradition*.

This content downloaded from

ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 V. A. TCHBRIKOVER

ditional support to my thesis. We know from our sources that Herod built
a theatre, an amphitheatre, and a stadium in Jerusalem, and yet th^re is no
mention of Greek educational institutions such as * gymnasion and an ephebeion.
If we consider that the books of Maccabees, when speaking of the Hellenistic
reform of 175 B.C., mention precisely these institutions, it is clear that
traditional Jewry was very sensitive on this point. Had Herod really established
a gymnasion in Jerusalem, Josephus would surely have mentioned it. Without
a gymnasion, however, no city is a polis; the Greek city depended on this insti
tution not only culturally but also for its civic organization (see above, n. 10).
Secondly, the sources never even hint at th? abolition of Jerusalem's previous
status and its transformation into a Greek city; such a reform, however,
would have been no small matter; had it occurred, Josephus must have men
tioned it. Thirdly, no inscription from Jerusalem with the well-known formula
'it is considered right by the Council and by the People' (e e ?
a ) has been found in excavations, while this formula is very often
repeated in inscriptions from other places. Again, there exists no inscription
from Jerusalem dealing with its politics, except for the well-known one for
bidding strangers to enter the innermost part of the Temple.27 Not a few
excavations have been carried out in the Jerusalem area, and thus the very
absence of such inscriptions is of great significance; as long as no decisive
proof is found for the existence of a Hellenistic regime in Jerusalem at the time
of the procurators, I shall rather assume that such a regime did dot exist, and
that the actual regime at that period was a natural result of the city's develop
ment?and that of the entire Jewish nation?over many centuries.

w Cf. Dittenbcrger, cp. cit. (above, . 10), No. 598.?There is no need to mention that the inscrip
tions on tombs, sarcophagi, etc. are of no political significance.

This content downloaded from

168.176.5.118 on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:58:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms