Category: Ancient History

In the Service of the Empire: Jewish Soldiers in the Roman Army – an academic paper by Shimon Applebaum

It’s time to go back in time.  Far back in time, that is.  

Inspired by Dr. Henry Abramson’s video about three ancient matzevot from Germany commemorating Roman soldiers who may (?) have been Jews, “this” post is a full transcript of an academic paper by Shimon Applebaum, entitled “Jews and Service in the Roman Army”.  From Roman Frontier Studies, part of the Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress held at Tel Aviv, it was published by the Students Organization of Tel Aviv University fifty-seven years ago, in 1967.  

I’ve enhanced the paper for the purposes of this blog by supplementing terms that may be obscure or little-known with explanatory comments in boldface, like this; hyperlinking such words; and, including text in Greek accompanied by translation – to match Applebaum’s original Greek text.  Also included are a few bibliographical references to send you further down the rabbit-hole of antiquity.    

While I’m unfamiliar with ancient history in general and Roman history in particular and thus cannot evaluate the accuracy of this paper in light of nearly six decades of subsequent scholarship, it’s still an interesting and thought-provoking read.  

The paper follows…

(The above illustration, a bookplate by famed illustrator Ephraim Moses Lilien, does not (!) accompany Applebaum’s original article.  I’m simply including it here to lend a little “atmosphere” to this post.  Though it’s moving and evocative to see the Magen David displayed as the central motif upon the shield of a Jewish warrior in ancient times, I doubt – given the history of the six-pointed star and the timing of its adoption by the Jewish people – that it would have appeared in such a context.  As for this image, I found it over two decades and many pixels ago, I now know not where.)

Jews were common in the forces of the Ptolemies and Seleucids both as line-troops and military settlers (katoikoi), [Meaning “home-grown”, “locals” or “natives”.] (1) and the problem arises: Why are they so seldom recorded in the Roman army?  The political tension between the Empire and the Jews of Judaea does not entirely explain their comparative absence, since ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ attack on Judaism does not seem adversely to have-affected the readiness of Jews to serve in Asia, Egypt and Cyrenaica, and Caesar’s favourable attitude removed the tension created by Pompey and Crassus.  Nor is it true that there existed any general privileged exemption of Jews from military service in the Roman Empire; the exemptions given in Asia were by-products of civil war and applied only to Jews who were Roman citizens, clearly a minority. (2)  In Judaea, exemption from local recruitment was a clause in the treaty between Rome and the last Hasmonaeans, (3) extended to the Herods, who had their own armed forces.  Nominally no obstruction existed to including Jews in the dilectus [The levying of soldiers for military service among the Romans.] in provinces where they were numerous, that is, in Syria, Asia, Egypt, Cyrenaica and Cyprus.

The general change of Jewish attitude to service in the armed forces of the ruling power is perhaps to be explained, if it took place, by the different character of the Roman forces.  The Roman army was not cosmopolitan, like the forces of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, but imposed an atmosphere of uniformity.  The Seleucids, for instance, made provision for the cultic needs of their Jewish troops before and after the Maccabees; (4) Launey concludes that neither in the Ptolemaic forces nor in the Seleucid armies was the ruler cult obligatory. (5)  But the Roman army possessed a much stronger cultic basis whose main foci were the standards, the imperial cult and the auspicia. (6) [In its proper sense the word means the watching of signs given by birds. But it was also applied to other signs, the observation of which was not intended to obtain answers about future events, but only to ascertain whether a particular proceeding was or was not acceptable to the deity concerned.]  The Jewish rejection of the imperial cult remained uncompromising even after the Jewish scholars had begun to take a lenient view, of ornamental statuary, mosaics and painting. (7)  As to augury, Josephus (8) cites from Hecataeus the entertaining anecdote of the Jewish archer Meshullam who, having shot the eagle which was being observed by the augurs, asked them how the bird had not foreseen its own fate.  A third, political factor, may well have made the Roman authorities reluctant to conscript Jews: this was the rise during the first seventy years of the 1st century C.E., if not before, of the revolutionary Zealot movement which spread before the war of 70 to Egypt, and after it to Cyprus and Cyrenaica.  This movement met its end in the Diaspora under Trajan and in Judaea under Hadrian, but its elimination carried with it the destruction of the Jewish communities outside Judaea from which Jewish manpower could be drawn – the exceptions were Asia Minor and Syria.

Despite all this, we do find a Jewish centurion recorded in 1st century Egypt. (9)  In 23 B.C.E. M. Terentius Varro as legate of Syria settled near Antioch, or in the Huleh Valley of Galilee, a squadron of Jewish mounted archers who had left Babylonia under their commander Zamaris.  A little later (9 B.C.E.) the unit was given to Herod to embody as military settlers near the Trachonitis. (10)  [A province of the area of *Bashan E. of the River Jordan and N. of the River Yarmuk. It was one of the three provinces into which the area was divided by the Ptolemies, the other two being Gaulonitis and Batanaea.]  These were not at first Roman troops sensu stricto, but they are interesting as being the product of a continuous Jewish military tradition in Mesopotamia which I shall refer to again. (10a)  Of a different order was Tiberius’ forced conscription of Judaizing freedmen at Rome to suppress brigandage in Sardinia. (11)  It was a special purge of social intention, but it also falls into line with the forced conscription of Roman proletariat in times of stress, (12) and Cheeseman thought to find these freedmen later present in the Orient among the cohortes c.R. (13)  [Cohors quinta Delmatarum civium Romanorum (“5th Cohort of Dalmatae Roman citizens”) was a Roman auxiliary infantry regiment.]  Further, the duties imposed on them do conform to the conception of the Jews as capable frontier settlers and river-police. (14)  Perhaps in this spirit we should interpret information from the Mishnah which suggests that Jews were already serving as burgārĭi [defenders of the borders] in Judaea at the end of the 1st century of the current era. (15)  We also hear of the infiltration of renegade Jews into the Roman army in Hadrian’s time.  The Midrash tells us of one such who had been a pupil of R. Joshua ben Hananiah. (16)

The Severan dynasty achieved a certain modus vivendi with the Jews of the Empire and their chief representative, R. Judah the Prince.  [Yehudah HaNasi]  This might be thought to have opened the way to Jewish service in the forces. (17)  But the evidence is not abundant.  A Rufinus whose epitaph in a Roman catacomb (18) suggests he was a soldier, was not quite certainly Jewish; at Beth Shearim, where the burials begin in this period, the epitaph of one Germanus of Palmyra has been thought to have been that of a member of the armed forces because the drawing of a soldier appears near his tomb, (19) but this does not seem to be quite beyond controversy.  More important is Cosmus, praepositus stationis [Jewish dedication to Alexander Severus] and archisynagogas at Intercisa under Alexander Severus. (20)  To assume that he was a customs official is to fall into an anachronism concerning Jewish occupational structure – he might equally have been in charge of a cattle-depot or a statio of coloni, and of this we shall speak below.

Christian writers say that Jews were frequent in the army in the 4th century, presumably because of much changed conditions. (21)  Of this time doubtless is the Jaffa tombstone commemorating a Jew whose father was
κεντηναριος της παρεμβολης [centenary of the intervention]. (22)  I suspect this was a centenarius [regimental officer in the late Roman army] of the Negev limes rather than a legionary centurion.

The Equites Promoti Indigenae [a limitanean military unit which was part of the army at disposition of the dux Arabiae] at Sina ludaeorum in Osrhoene, recorded in the Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, XXXV, (19), [The official handbook of the civil and military officials in the later Roman Empire; see also]  are also interesting from a Jewish point of view, because from Mesopotamia came Zamaris’ cavalry unit, and the Babylonian Jews seem to have been good military material, having defeated the dreaded Galatians there in the later 3rd century B.C.E., (23) and as witness the two brothers Hasinai and Hanilai who set up their own principality near Nehardea in the 1st century C.E. and defended it by force of arms. (24)  It may not be irrelevant to recall that Alexander Severus, who was well disposed to the Jews, mobilized considerable forces of archers in Osrhoene. (25) [an ancient region and state in Upper Mesopotamia]  This being so, it is not beyond possibility that some of the former garrison at Sina ludaeorum were Jews; the placename doubtless represents a Seleucid foundation for Jewish katoikoi.

No such doubt affects the numerus regi – – ludeorum Emesenorum referred to on a 4th century tombstone from Concordia, the modern Porto Grdaro near Aquileia. (26)  I cannot explain how or why a Jewess, Flavia Optata, [(wife?) of a soldier from the troop of the royal Emesene Jews] who is here commemorated, came to be serving in the Roman army, but I do have views on the origin of the unit itself.  Editors of the inscription have inevitably agreed that the word regi- is to be completed as regorium and connected with the regii referred to in the Notitia (Occ, V, 209; VII, 32).  But the royal house of Emesa [City in Syria. It was ruled by a dynasty which enjoyed friendly political relations in the first century C.E. with Agrippa I (Jos., Ant., 18:135; 19:338) and with Agrippa II (ibid., 20:139).] was dethroned under Domitian (27) and the first numeri appear only under Hadrian (28).  In any case, the other known Emesan numerus appears under the Severi, (28a) when the city received ius Italicum. (29)  [Ius Italicum (Latin, Italian or Italic law) was a law in the early Roman Empire that allowed the emperors to grant cities outside Italy the legal fiction that they were on Italian soil.]  I suggest that the abbreviation regi – should be completed regionis [Area or region.] – as in a British inscription from Ribchester. (29a)  In this case, where was the “Regio ludaeorum Emesenorum”?

It is tempting to connect the name with the Regio of Ainathus, (30) in the Pcraca of Transjordan. one of Herod’s administrative centres, certainly inhabited by Jews (cf. Josephus, Ant., XVII, 277;B.J., II, 59) and still a regio in the 6th century. (31)  But although the names Ainathus and Emesa bear a deceptive resemblance, the hellenized “Hemesinus” of the inscriptions appears to be confined to the Syrian Emesa.  The two types of regio which seem most relevant to our case are the frontier area in which the coloni were organized as numeri, and the area attached to a fort, in which the veterans of a numerus were settled after their service; an example is the regio Bremetenacensis observed by the late Sir Ian Richmond in north Britain. (32)  There were certainly Jewish villages near Emesa in the 3rd and 4th centuries (33) but Hierocles, who records many regiones and klimakes from the time of Theodosius, knows none near that city.

A third suggestion is possible, and I offer it for the consideration of our Hungarian colleagues.  The fort of Intercisa was occupied from the later 2nd century by the Cohors I miliaria Emesenorum sagittariorum equitata c.R. (34), and, as we have seen, there was a synagogue outside the fort whose archisynagogus [Head or chief of a synagogue.] in the time of Alexander Severus was a praepositus stationis.  As we learn from an independent source that Emesa gave a complete Jewish unit to the Roman army, it seems probable that an Emesan cohort garrisoning a fort which boasted a synagogue in its vicus, also had Jews in its ranks.  It is not impossible, therefore, that Jewish veterans from the unit were settled near the fort in their own region, from which the numerus rcgionis Emesenorum Iudeorum was duly enrolled, – the more so as the brigading of numeri [A vague term (singular: numerus), which became increasingly popular as a general term for both infantry and cavalry units.] with other units became a common practice in the 3rd century, for instance in Britain. (35)  In this case the statio for which Cosmus was responsible might well have been the centre of a regio of the type which originated as a centre of taxation and recruiting in the Severan period (36).  From Intercisa it would not have been unexpected for the numerus Emesenorum Iudeorum to have been moved to Concordia in the 5th century, (37) with various other numeri from Germany and Dalmatia, whose tombstones were found with that of the mysterious and martial Jewess, Flavia Optata.

NOTES

(1) See V. Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt (2) 1963, English summary, pp. v-vi; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, I, 1957, 11-15; Section III, 147-178; M. Launey, Recherches sur les armees hellenistiques, 1949-50. Asia: Jos., Ant, XII, 148-153; XIII, 250-252. Cyrenaica, C Ap., II, 44.
(2) Jos., Ant., XIV, 224; 228; 231; 234; 2 36; XVI, 27 etc. Augustus has no mention of military exemption in his general confirmation of Jewish rights in 2 C.F., (Ant., XVI, 160).
(3) Jos., Ant., XIV, 202.
(4) Jos., Ant, XII, 150, 152; XIII, 251.
(5) Op. Cit.
(6) See A. von Domaszewski, Die Fahnen in römischen Heere, 1885; Die Religion des römischen Heeres, Westd. Ztschr., XIV, 1895; Fink, Hoey and Snyder, The Feriale Duranum, Yale Class. Stud., 7, (1940).
(7) Urbach, I.E. J., IX, (1959), “The rabbinical law of idolatry in the second and third centuries in the light of archaeological evidence and historical facts”.
(8) C. Ap., I, 22 (201).
(9) Ostrakon Edfu 159 = Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, II, 1960, no. 229 (116 C.E.); his name was Aninios (Hanina).
(10) Jos., Ant, XVII, 23-28.
(10a) Cf. O.G.I., I, 435 (Sür), a στρατοπεδαρχης καλογειτων και στρατιωτων [commander of good men and soldiers] (75 or 80 C.E.), suggesting that these troops were reorganized on Roman lines by the Flavians.
(11) Tac., Ann., 11/85; Suet., Tib., 36; Jos., Ant, XVIII, 81-84. Suetonius’ phrase in reference to the Jewish freedmen’s conscription – per speciem sacramenti – is interesting.  Does it mean that a special form of oath was used?  Or alternatively, that conscription was a mere pretext for exile?
(12) Dio, LV, 31; LVI, 23; Velleius, II, 111; Suet., Aug., 25. Cf. L. Cheeseman, Auxilia of the Roman
Army, 1914, 65-6.
(13) Op. cit, 66, n, 2.
(14) The Jewish ποτομοφνλακια [river banks] – Jos., C. Ap., II, 64.
(15) See the additional note to Dr. Safrai’s paper.9999
(16) Mid. Gen. Rabb., 82, 9, Albeck, 984, 985: “Renegade troops” are referred to.  One of them would appear to have been Barsimso Callisthenis f. of Caesarea Maritima, who joined the Coh. I. Vindelicorum in 132 C.E., (C.I.L., III, 2, p. 882, Dip. XL).  A different case was Mathaius son of Polaus, a Syrian, who enlisted in the fleet, probably at Antioch-on-the-Orontes, somewhere about 40 C.E., and was discharged as a soldier of Leg. I Adiutrix in 68.  (C.I.L., III, 2, p. 914, Dip. V).  Among the men who joined up with him was a C. Iulius Agrippa of Apamea, who may well have been Jewish also.  Mathaius, who cites no birthplace, must have been from the countryside.
(17) Severus adjusted formalities to facilitate Jews to take official posts: Ulp., Dig., 50, 2, 3, 3.
(18) Frey, C.I.J., I, 79.
(19) B. Maisler (Mazar), Beth Shearim (2) I, 195 8, p. 126 and fig. 15. (Heb.).
(20) Frey, CI.J., 1936, 677.
(21) Sulpicius Severus, Chron., 2, 3, 6.
(22) Sepher Ha-Yishuv, I, 1939, 81, no. 114 (Heb.).
(23) II Macc, 8, 20. S. Zeitlin, The Second Book of the Maccabees, 1954, p. 174, n. 20, tentatively attributes the battle concerned to Antiochus III’s war with Molon (Justin, 25, 2; Polyb., V, 5 1-4).
(24) Jos., Ant., XVIII, ch. 9 (310-370).
(25) Herodian, VII, 1, 9.
(26) C.I.L., V, 8764.
(27) Rostovtzeff, Soc. Econ. Hist. Rom. Emp. (2) 1957, 663, n. 31.
(28) Kaiserliche Beamten und Truppenkörper im römischen Deutschland unter dem Principat, 1965, 233 sqq.
(28a) Ann. Epig., 1926, n. 145.
(29) Dig., L. 15, 1,4, 8, 6.
(29a) C.I.L.,VII, 218;  Richmond in J.R.S., XXV, (1935), 15 sqq.
(30) Georg. Cyp., 18.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Note 29a.
(33) Jer., Yeb., XI, 2; Jer., Dem., VI, I.
(34) RE, IV, 1, 1900, col. 295, s.v. Cohors.
(35) AA (4), IX, (1932), 210; C.I.L., VII, 218, 285, 1037 (= RIB, 583; 601; 1270); RIB, 1244 etc. Cf. for Germany, Stein, op. cit., 240.
(36) Carcopino, Rev. Africaine, 1918, 5-22; H.M.D. Parker, Hist of the Rom. World, 1935, 1 18-1 19.  For Jewish settlement in Roman times between Intercisa and Esztergom, see T. Balacz in Semit. Studies in Memory of I. Löw, 1947, 5 sqq.
(37) Or were these men of various units detached for service in the arrow-factory of Concordia recorded by Not. Dig., Occ, IX, 24?

Otherwise…

The Roman Army

“Jews in the Roman Army”, at Roman Army Talk (2009)

Articles

Olshanetsky, Haggai, “Keeping Kosher: The Ability of Jewish Soldiers to Keep the Dietary Laws as a Case Study for the Integration of Minorities in the Roman Army”, Jewish Quarterly Review, V 113, N 1, Winter, 2023, pp. 59-82

Schoenfeld, Andrew J., “Sons of Israel in Caeser’s Service: Jewish Soldiers in the Roman Military”, Shofar – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies,  V 24, N 3, 2006, pp. 115-126

A Chapter in a Book

Roth, Jonathan P., “Jews and the Roman army: Perceptions and realities”, chapter in The Impact of the Roman Army (200 B.C. – A.D. 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects (pp.409-420), June, 2007, from Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 B.C. – A.D. 476), Capri, Italy, March 29-April 2, 2005 (Series: Impact of Empire, Volume: 6)

And, A Book

González-Salinero, Raúl, “Military service and the integration of Jews into the Roman empire.”, The Brill reference library of Judaism, 72. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2022. ISBN 9789004506756 (Reviewed at Bryn Mawr Classical Review)

On Uneven Ground: Interactions Between Roman Soldiers and the Jews of Eretz Israel after the Destruction of the Second Temple (post 70 C.E.)

Paralleling Shimon Applebaum’s paper about Jews in the Roman Army, which appeared in Roman Frontier Studies, part of the Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress held at Tel Aviv, published by the Students Organization of Tel Aviv University in 1967 is a paper by Shmuel Safrai, entitled “The Relations Between the Roman Army and the Jews of Eretz Israel After the Destruction of the Second Temple”.  As such, this paper focuses not on Jewish military service, but instead interactions between Roman soldiers and Jewish inhabitants of Israel.  

Terms that may be obscure or little-known are supplemented with with explanatory comments in boldface, like this; and hyperlinked. 

Here’s the paper…

To answer the question, what were the relations between the Roman forces and the Jewish people of this country, we have at our disposal, besides the usual sources for provincial history, a special category not available in other provinces.  The literary, epigraphical and pypyrological sources available to the scholar were generally written by the authorities, by government or municipal officials and members of the army of various ranks.  Even the applications and complaints of city and country-people to the authorities reach us drafted in official language and constitute part of the official documentation.  The literary sources too were mostly written by people close to the ruling group or at least belonging to the same cultural and linguistic circles.  But for the study of the history of this country and the Jewish people living in it, we have the great corpus of Talmudic literature and its various branches, which in the course of transmitting legal rulings (halakhah) [Halakhah (also spelled halachah) refers to Jewish law. Per its literal translation, “the way,” halachah guides the day-to-day life of a Jew.], anecdotal material (aggadah) [Within the Talmud, non-legal material, including ethical and theological teachings, interpretations of biblical narratives (midrash), excurses on topics from magic to brain surgery to dream interpretation, and stories pertaining to post-biblical events and personalities.], philosophy and biblical commentary, bring before us popular life with all its nuances and struggles.  The halakhah and aggadah relate not only numerous stories of the great events engraved in the memory and tradition of the nation, but also small details of the daily life of the individual in town and country as he travels from place to place; and of his relationships with the authorities and its institution’s, or with the army stationed in the district.  In the course of elucidating matters of halakhah and aggadah, anecdotes are told of encounters between the army and the local inhabitants; these testify to suffering and acts of oppression on the one hand, and to good relations, assistance and understanding evinced by members of the forces towards the urban and rural population on the other.

After the war of 66 – 70 relatively large forces were stationed in the country; Legio X Fretensis was encamped there permanently, and with it various smaller units.  Additional forces were brought into the country during the Jewish revolts under Trajan (115-117), and in the time of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the ‘thirties, Legio VI Ferrata was sent and remained permanently at the village of Caparcotna near the Vale of Esdraelon. (1)  In addition we find, not later than the ‘eighties of the 1st century, permanent burgi placed along the main road from Tyre through Akzib to Akko.  In the late period these were dispersed in various localities, including the rural areas, and we shall discuss them shortly.

The Roman army had as a rule arrived in the country in times of rebellion and had sometimes spent the first years of its sojourn in hard fighting; these conditions left more than a mark on the mutual relations between the army and the people of the country.  Moreover the Roman army and its commanders came into contact mainly with the hellenized population of the country’s cities and villages.  This population was steeped in hatred and contempt for the Jews, and its sentiments were communicated to the army, finding expression in its attitude and behaviour to the inhabitants.  The financial exactions and heavy liturgies required of the provincial populations were levied in Judaea with peculiar oppressiveness.  Nor was this all: the various demands made by the Roman army upon the inhabitants, and the behaviour of the troops, sometimes created for the Jews peculiar problems, because they collided with their religious requirements and hit directly at their peculiar way of life, whether this was intentional on the part of the Romans or not.

Sources of a general character and concrete occurrences can be cited which inform us of the general aspect of these relations.  In Mishnah [The Mishnah is the main text of the Talmud. A collection of terse teachings written in Hebrew, it was redacted by Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.]‘Avodah Zarah (V, 6) we read: “If a military patrol enter the town, and it is in peacetime, winejars that have been left open are subsequently prohibited; if they were left closed, they may be drunk from.  But in wartime both are permitted, because there is no time for libations.”  The halakhah prohibits wine sampled by a non-Jew, for fear that he may have poured a libation to a pagan god, and the Mishnah ruled that in peacetime it was to be feared that the troops had sampled all winejars left open and also poured idolatrous libations; drinking was permitted only in wartime on the assumption that in such circumstances the troops had no time to perform such rites.

The Talmud cites another parallel ruling: “All the wives of priests in a city captured by siege (Χαρακωμα) are disqualified from the priesthood.”  The text explains: “(In wartime troops) have no time for libations; but they do have time for rape.” (2)  These were no mere theoretical rulings, and in various passages we read of cases brought before the sages concerning both the purity of women and the permissibility of wine.  The Babylonian Talmud, in the Tractate on Idolatry, relates (70b) how a military detachment entered a town and opened numerous winejars; the case was therefore brought before R. Yohanan (3) (who lived in the middle of the 3rd century) and he declared the wine consumable.  In Jer. Ket, (II, 2, 26, fo. 4), R. Hayya bar Ashi (4) (also of the middle of the 3rd century), relates an occurrence in which a blind woman succeeded in escaping.  The sages inclined to be lenient with her on the assumption that there had been some hiding place or way of escape.  We read in Jer. Ned., (XI, 42, fo. 4), in relation to the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, of a woman, the wife of a priest, who appeared before R. Hananiah, a member of an association of rabbis, and he relates of her: “Troops had entered the city and a woman came and said: ‘A soldier embraced me’ … and I acquitted her and permitted her to eat of the offerings.”  This hard reality applied not merely to times of war and siege, but also to peacetime.  In one passage, which belongs to the beginning of the 2nd century, we read: “The story is told of Simeon of Timnah who did not come to the schoolhouse on the nights of the festival.  R. Judah ben Babba met him at the hour of early morning prayer, and said to him:  Why did you not come to the schoolhouse last night?  He replied, I found a duty to perform.  A gentile patrol entered the town and I was afraid they were going to create trouble for the townspeople, so we slaughtered a calf for them and gave it to them to eat.” (5)  The sage took the initiative in respect of the said military unit, slaughtering a calf and providing them with a feast to prevent them entering the town and afflicting the townspeople during the festival.  One sage, R. Isaac, of the late 3rd century, complained, quoting Hosea’s words “And I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feastings, her new moons and her sabbaths and all her solemn feasts” (Hosea, 1:11) that no festival passed but a military patrol came to Sepphoris.

At times the inhabitants even chose to desert the town and leave it to the fury of the soldiery, to save themselves from physical injury.  The halakhah prohibits a man from walking more than 2,000 cubits (about two stades) outside the town, in any direction, but on the eve of the Sabbath he could place an ‘Erub [An eruv (ערוב, pronounced ay-roov), in modern terminology, is a technical boundary that allows Jews to carry in public areas on Shabbat. It is one of those traditions which has blossomed from a basic Torah principle into a highly complicated legal matter.], i.e. the food for a meal, at the limit of that distance, and having thus fixed his abode there, could walk another two stades on the Sabbath.  Of this the Mishnah states: “A man may make conditions about this ‘Erub and say, if gentiles come from the east let my ‘Erub be to the west; if from the west, let my ‘Erub be to the east”, (6) i.e. he may go two stades from his town in the opposite direction to that from which the gentiles are approaching.  In the same paragraph the Jerusalem Talmud cites two versions to this teaching: “If the gentiles come from the east my ‘Erub is to the west, but some teach the other way, to the east”, meaning that some teach that a person does not intend to go far from his town in the opposite direction, but to proceed in the same direction as that whence the gentiles are coming.  The Jerusalem Talmud explains these two versions by saying: “Whoso says eastward, refers to a taxiotes, and who says westward, means the Romans.” (7)  In other words, the divergent view ruling that the person intends to proceed in the direction from which the gentiles are coming, is speaking of the approach of a commander (taxiotes) whom one must go out to greet, while the view which speaks of the west as the opposite direction, is speaking of the Romans, from whom one must flee.  In Palestinian literature the expression “Romans” never denotes Roman civilians, but always Roman soldiers. (8)

Such harassing conduct was not limited to warlike operations or to units on the march, but was also indulged in by individual soldiers in everyday life, even in their pettiest acts.  One passage tells of R. Eleazar (d. 279) who “entered (a privy) and there came an optio [The second-in-command of a century, although there were many other roles an optio could adopt.] of the Romans, and forcing him to rise, sat down in his place.” (9)  R. Eleazar lived and worked at Tiberias and this incident must have occurred there.  Elsewhere we read of an incident in the life of the city of Sepphoris at the beginning of the 3rd century: “Aman of Sepphoris wanted to buy a piece of meat from the butcher and the latter refused him; he told a Roman soldier, who got it for him.  …  The case came before R. Judah” etc. (10)

As we have said, sometimes the actions of the Roman troops infringed the Jewish way of life quite unintentionally.  We may cite a case with whose participants and occasion we are acquainted.  In 351 a Jewish revolt took place against the corrupt rule of Gallus [Cestius Gallus], and Ursicinius commanded the force sent to put it down.  Of this time it is related, that the leading men of the Sanhedrin at Tiberias ordered bread to be baked for the troops on Sabbath, being of the opinion that there was no need to resist the order and to court martyrdom, as forced apostasy and persecution were not Ursicinius’ intention, and he merely wished to give his troops fresh bread. (11)

But side by side with the numerous traditions of the meting out of ill treatment and suffering by the troops, there exist throughout the period after the Destruction not a few testimonies to good relations with the Jewish inhabitants, or to assistance rendered by the Roman army, whether by military units or by individual soldiers and commanders, to them.  We read in a divergent Talmudic ruling dating approximately from the time of the destruction of the Temple: (12) “A fire broke out on the Sabbath in the yard of Rabbi Joseph ben Simai of Sikhin and the garrison of the castra of Sepphoris came to put it out, but he would not permit them and a cloud came down and extinguished it.  And the sages said that there-was no need (to prohibit them); nevertheless at the end of the Sabbath he sent a sela’ to each of them and 50 dinars to their Hipparchus.” (13)  The halakhah rules that one should not call in a gentile to desecrate the Sabbath on behalf of Jews, but if he comes of his own accord one may allow him to do so.  In the present case the troops came from the castra of Sennhoris on their own initiative, but Joseph ben Simai, adopting the strict interpretation, forbade them to desecrate the Sabbath on his behalf.  But he also showed generosity, and sent the soldiers a gift of money (four denarii for each and 50 for the Hipparchus, the commander of the-cavalry unit).  One of the sources (14) observes: “Because he was the king’s epitropos (procurator).” It is probable that he was the same procurator of King Agrippa who asked R. Eleazar (15) a question on halakhah, and managed estates which Agrippa, like his sister Berenice, owned in that district.  This is more probable than that Ben Simai was in charge of the city of Sepphoris. (16)  The foregoing incident, then, belongs to the time just before the destruction of the Temple.  In this case the troops rendered aid to a person close to Roman government circles, but there are also reports of friendships with simple people.  We read in Mishnah Bekhorot (V, 3): “It once happened that a quaestor [The lowest-ranking regular magistrate in ancient Rome, whose traditional responsibility was the treasury.] saw an old ram with long, dangling hair, and said, What manner of thing is this?  They answered,  It is a firstling which may be slaughtered only if it suffers a blemish.  He took a dagger and slit its ear.  The matter came before the Sages and they declared it permitted.  When he saw that they had declared it permitted, he went and slit the ear of the other firstlings; and they declared it forbidden.”  The halakhah rules that every male firstling must be sacrificed as a peace offering, but after the Destruction when sacrifices could not be offered, the firstling was allowed to grow up till it suffered a blemish and could be butchered in secular fashion, but the blemish must not be intentionally inflicted.  This ruling was the outcome of the incident of the Quaestor, since the slaughter of the firstling on which a blemish was inflicted without Jewish request was permitted, but the others on which he inflicted a blemish were prohibited.  In the provinces the quaestor served in military capacities, and from the Talmudic sources we hear chiefly of his military character.  The story as a whole conveys an attitude of understanding for Jews on the part of the said officer.

In Eccles. Rabba (Ua), R. Isaac (end of the 3rd century) relates: “There is an episode of a merchant who was on a journey when he met a soldier, and as they journeyed together, developed an affection for him.  When they came to a town he entertained him with food and drink.”  The story goes on to narrate how the merchant was arrested on a charge of murder and how the said soldier saved him from a sentence.  Elsewhere (17) we read that R. Immi, a sage of the late 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century, found a purse of denarii.  A Roman soldier saw him hesitating, and said to him: “Take it for yourself, we’re not like the Persians who say that all lost property belongs to the king.”  R. Immi, (18) who had come from Babylon, hesitated to pick up the purse and take it for himself because according to Persian custom he was dutybound to hand it over to the authorities, but the Roman soldier put him at his ease.

From another source we learn of a Roman army commander’s estimation of the Patriarch Judah Nesiah, who was active in the middle of the 3rd century.  We read in this source: “A ducennarius [A social and military position in ancient Rome. The term ducenarius means “containing two hundred.]” presented Rabbi Judah the Patriarch with a dish full of denarii.  The latter took one and returned to him the rest.” (19)  The subject and discussion of the incident make it clear that it was a pagan festival on which the commander wished to honour the Patriarch; the latter took one coin out of courtesy and restored the dish full.  The ducennarius in that period was first and foremost a military post, (20) but it is not impossible that the admiring official was here a civilian.

A special theme is that of relations with the burgārĭi, [defenders of the borders] who are already evidenced in the country in the ‘seventies or ‘eighties of the 1st century, according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who was active about the time of the Destruction.  A clearer picture of the burgarii is to be found at the beginning of the 2nd century, in the account of the journey of Rabban Gamaliel, who appears to have died before the Jewish rebellion under Trajan (115-117).  In the first testimony concerning burgarii in the country, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai bewails the fate of the Jews of the country who, instead of repairing the roads for the pilgrims to Jerusalem, are forced to repair the burgi for those who go up to the imperial cities, (21) i.e. to such cities as Caesarea.  But apart from this evidence, the other testimonies show good relations with the burgarii.  The second source is, as stated, of the time of Rabban Gamaliel: It is related of Rabban Gamaliel and R. Ilai that they were journeying from ‘Akko to Akzib, and seeing a cake, Gamaliel said to his slave Tabi: Pick it up.  R. Gamaliel saw a gentile and said to him, Magbai, Pick up the cake.  R. Ilai ran after him and said: What sort of a man are you?  He replied: I am from the hamlets of the burgarii.  And what is your name?  He replied: My name is Magbai. (22)  The burgi were situated along the road (as emerges from another passage of the middle of the 2nd century, from the words of R. Simeon) also between Tiberias and Sepphoris, where they were distributed with considerable density. (23)  The burgi are connected with small villages or farms, but we are not in a position to say what the connection was.  It is possible that these farms were worked by the burgarii who, according to another source, belong with the rest of the agricultural workers who sometimes spent the night in the town and sometimes in the fields.  “The shepherds, the burgarii and the crop-watchmen, whose custom is sometimes to sleep in the town … and sometimes to sleep in the field.” (24)  What stands out in the traditional story of Rabbi Gamaliel is not only the good relations prevailing between him and the burgarius, but also that the latter possesses, not a Greek or a Roman, but a typically Canaanite name: Magbai. (25)  Two later parables again inform us of the existence of burgarii along the roads, and one of them recounts the good relations existing with them.  We read in Leviticus Rabba, 10 (VIII, 4): “A king journeying in the desert entered a burgus, and ate and drank there: entered a second, ate, drank and slept the night there.”  Here the lodger is “a king”, that is, a high Roman official or commander but in another parable, Midrash Psalms, ad 10, according to R. Hanina of the first half of the 3rd century, we read: “Like unto a caravan which was on a journey: as it grew dark it came to the burgus, and the burgarius said to them:  Enter the burgus, for there are evil beasts and robbers.  The (head of) the caravan said to him:  It is not our wont to enter burgi.  He went on, and as late night and darkness overtook him, he returned to the burgarius and shouted, begging that he open to him.  The burgarius replied: “It is not the wont of burgarii to open at night, or to receive at this hour.”  The burgarius is not only ready to give shelter to a caravan, but even invites it to enter, and the (head of) the caravan, for some reason, refuses, and only at night, as fear prevails, is he ready to enter.

Another source, Jerusalem, Avodah Zarah (IV, 4, 3, 4d), tells how R. Simeon ben Rabbi (first half of the 3rd century) was assisted by a burgarius in the removal from his field of stones devoted to idolatrous rites.

NOTES

(1) Inscriptions relating to the legions stationed in the province of Judaea (Syria-Palaestina) are collected by B. Lifschitz, Roman Legions in Eretz Yisrael, Yediot, XXIII, (1959), pp. 53 sqq. (Heb.).  To these texts should be added others scattered in various provinces, whose authors served in this country.  For the period immediately before the destruction of the Second Temple, CIL, III, p. 854, DipL XIV.
(2) Ket., 27a, 1; A.Z., 71a.
(3) According to the principal texts.
(4) This is the preferable reading, rather than Rabbi Hama bar Ishi, who is not known to us from any other source.
(5) Tos., Betzah, 11, 6 and parallels.
(6) ‘Erub., Ill, S.
(7) Jer. ‘Erub., Ill, 2lb.
(8) Cf. Hull., 46a.
(9) Jer. Shabb., VI, 8 fin., c and parallels.
(10) Jer. Sheq., VII, 50c.
(11 Jer. Sheb., IV, 35, a. fin;  Sanh., Ill, 21b.
(12) Tos. Shabb., XIII, 9,  ib., Ned., IV, 38d;  B. Shabb., 121a;  Deut., Rab., Oxford m.s. (Liebermann, p. 70).
(13) Some versions have: “to the Hipparchus amongst them”.
(14) Tal. Bab., ibid.
(15) Suk., 27a. .
(16 Jos., Vit., 24; cf. Allon, History of the Jews of Eretz Yisrael, I, 91 (Heb.).
(17) Bab. Matz., 28b.
(18) So in most texts, but some read “Rabbi Asi”, which makes no difference to the discussion.
(19) Jer., A.Z., I, 9b.
(20) A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 637 sqq. on the ducennarius.
(21) Mekh., Mes. ba-Hodesh, a, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 307.  Also Cant. Rab. Zuta, ed. Buber, p. 12 with some verbal variations.
(22) Tos. Pes., I, 27 and parallels.  The name Mambogaios is very common in Syrian inscriptions: see also Honigmann, R.E., Supp. IV, 1924, 733, s.v. Hierapolis.
(23) Tos. ‘Erub., IV, 9, and cf. Jer. ‘Erub., IV, 22b.
(24) Tos. ‘Erub., IV, 9.
(25) Cf. Gen. Rab., 90, 8;  Makkot, XI, 2, and the Tosaphot, ibid., fol. b. 5.

Video time! – In the Service of the Empire: Jewish Soldiers in the Roman Army – in Germany – in the First Century B.C.E. (?)

After over 225 posts, it’s time to go back in time.  Far back in time, that is; much farther back than the twentieth century.  

With that, here’s a fascinating video by Dr. Henry Abramson (specialist in Jewish history and thought, and, Dean at the Avenue J campus of Touro University in Brooklyn, N.Y.), from his YouTube channel, Dr. Henry Abramson Jewish History Lectures (788 videos and counting as of March, 2023) concerning Jewish soldiers in the Roman Army in the first century before the Common Era. 

The apt title?:  “Three Jewish Roman Soldiers? in Germany? IN THE FIRST CENTURY BCE?”