Jewish Senators ?

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

I was wondering if there are any known Jews who were enrolled into the Roman senate.
By Jews I mean any who retained their religion and gainned senatorial status.

If there are none isn't it rather contrary to Roman policy ? Up until the Jewish War Judea had
been a Roman province for over a century. Yet no members of the Jewish aristocracy had
joined the ranks of the senate in Rome ? If not, why ?

Claudius had enrolled Gallic aristocrats into the senate after Gaul had been conquered about
a century earlier. Certainly there were wealthy, highly educated Jewish aristocrats in Judea
who met the threshold to be considered worthy candidates.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Deuteronomium Rabbah (II:24) mentions a senator ("sanklitos") who had converted to Judaism in the days of Eliezer the Great and Gamaliel II. This senator may or may not be identical to T. Flavius Clemens, who is mentioned by Cassius Dio as being accused of "atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned" (67.14). However, much of this evidence is unclear.

The case of Tiberius Julius Alexander is better understood. However, he was an eques, not a senator. Still, it shows that there was no racial or religious obstacle against Jews in the elite of the Mediterranean Empire.

[Theodosius the Great]

Deuteronomium Rabbah (II:24) mentions a senator ("sanklitos") who had converted to Judaism in the days of Eliezer the Great and Gamaliel II. This senator may or may not be identical to T. Flavius Clemens, who is mentioned by Cassius Dio as being accused of "atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned" (67.14). However, much of this evidence is unclear.

Interesting, I knew about Flavius Clemens being a possible Christian convert but didn't know about the first reference you made. It helps that he already had his "foot in the door" but this is a bit of a digression from the part of my question concerning the non-senatorial status of the Jewish elite before the outbreak of war. Nonetheless, he is the only senator I've heard of so far who may have adhered to Judaism.

The case of Tiberius Julius Alexander is better understood. However, he was an eques, not a senator.

Yes, I knew about this man as well but understood him to be an apostate (hence my qualification in my first post.) But I didn't know his apostasy was disputed by more recent scholarship.

Still, it shows that there was no racial or religious obstacle against Jews in the elite of the Mediterranean Empire.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Jona, about the former but am less sure about the latter. Using your example of Tiberius Julius Alexander, both Josephus and Philo seem to criticze him (in ambiguous terms) for "impiety". Even if they do not mean to say that he apostated they could very well mean that he had to deemphasize his jewishness in order to advance in his career, IMO. This would seem all the more plausible after the Jewish War but may have also been true (to a smaller degree) just prior to it.

To cite another prominent individual, Herod Agrippa for a long time walked among the imperial family and befriended a few members along the way. He was well liked by Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius. Yet he doesn't seem to have been made a senator to indicate his being in favor with the ruling family. On the other hand, despite his royal lineage, he was always in debt and roamed around the empire begging for money. So he probably did not meet the standards to qualify to become a senator. Any thoughts on his situation ?

Also, going back to my reference about Claudius enrolling Gauls into the senate, the newly enfranchised Gauls were not welcomed by some of their Italian counterparts in the Senate who thought them to be semi-Romanised at best [Tacitus, Annals 11, 23-24]. So, I would imagine similar snobbery against having indigeonous Jews enter the senate.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

The case of Tiberius Julius Alexander is better understood. However, he was an eques, not a senator.

Yes, I knew about this man as well but understood him to be an apostate (hence my qualification in my first post.) But I didn't know his apostasy was disputed by more recent scholarship.

The problem is partly that it is hard to be an apostate from a religion without orthodoxy. Julius Alexander, like almost everyone in Antiquity, selected from the Judaisms of his time - Phariseism, Essenism, Sadduceism, and so on - what he found useful.

There was no Jewish orthodoxy yet. Judaism had to be challenged by the destruction of the temple and by the rise of Christianity first; only in the second century CE, the central tenets were defined. The same can be said for Christianity: it was only after Christians had been killed by Bar Kochba and after the break with the other Judaisms had been completed, that questions were raised about what it meant to be a Christian.

This is why Flavius Clemens, in c. 95, could be considered both a Christian and a Jew: rabbis and Christian teachers were still trying to define their attitudes, and claiming to be the sole heir of temple Judaism. Non-specialists might have considered all of them monotheists (and therefore, Jews or Atheists).

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, I see your point, Jona. The only ways I can think of that one could apostate are to either reject the preeminence of the Jerusalem Temple (which might make one a Samaritan) or to cease worshiping God to the exclusion of other gods. There may have been more but none come to mind.

I'd like to modify what I said before about Alexander having to deemphasize his Jewishness in order to advance his political career. You said there was no racial obstacle to becoming a senator and I think that's true up to a point. I think being a non-Italian was an obstacle but not one that could not be overcome. At the very least I think being from outside Italy hindered one's chances of entering the senate.

Gaul and Judea were conquered around the same time - the former by Caesar, the latter by Pompey. The Aedui chiefs were granted senatorial status by Claudius despite the fact that they waivered in their loyalty to Julius Caesar. But the Jews of Judea were fast allies of Caesar when he was in the most danger. Culturally, technologically, materially Jews were far more sophiscated than the Gauls. Yet the Aedui were granted access to the senate in greater numbers than the Judean Jews as far as I can tell.

What advantages did the Gauls have over the Jews ?

I can only think of two : proximity to Italy and the status of being among first tier provinces.
The latter seems more decisive. Maybe the fact that Judea's status as a third tier province
made their elite's assimilation a lower priority in Roman eyes ?? Opinions, anyone ?

~Theo

[Epictetus]

You said there was no racial obstacle to becoming a senator and I think that's true up to a point. I think being a non-Italian was an obstacle but not one that could not be overcome. At the very least I think being from outside Italy hindered one's chances of entering the senate.

I believe some of the more cosmopolitan, inclusive Emperors had problems with this. I have always been fascinated by the argument between Claudius and the Senate regarding Senators from Gaul.

“My ancestors, the most ancient of whom was made at once a citizen and a noble of Rome, encourage me to govern by the same policy of transferring to this city all conspicuous merit, wherever found...
Tacitus, Annals, 11.

Inscription: Claudius: "It is surely an innovation of the divine Augustus, my great-uncle, and of Tiberius Caesar, my uncle, to desire that particularly the flower of the colonies and of the municipal towns, that is to say, all those that contain men of breeding and wealth, should be admitted to this assembly."

[Interruption, seemingly by a senator]: "How now? Is not an Italian senator to be preferred to a provincial senator!?"

Claudius: "I will soon explain this point to you, when I submit that part of my acts which I performed as censor, but I do not conceive it needful to repel even the provincials who can do honour to the Senate House...

[Interrupting shout]: "Here now, Tiberius Caesar Germanicus! It's time to let the Conscript Fathers understand what your talk is driving at---already you've reached the very limits of Narbonnese Gaul!"

Claudius: ..."Assuredly, Conscript Fathers, it is not without some hesitation that I cross the limits of the provinces which are well known and familiar to you, but the moment is come when I must plead openly the cause of Further Gaul. It will be objected that Gaul sustained a war against the divine Julius for ten years. But let there be opposed to this the memory of a hundred years of steadfast fidelity, and a loyalty put to the proof in many trying circumstances..."
The Table of Lyons

Edit: This could be interesting: Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule. On page 391 four different individuals are mentioned.

[john m roberts]

Might Jews have been prevented from assuming senatorial status by the many oaths and sacrifices required of a senator? Gauls and others would have had no problem with this.