 (1).png){kind=spacer}
10 hours ago
1
For the first time in 1,900 years, humans have been able to read ancient text dating from the height of the Roman Empire.
The historic text was written on a scroll of papyrus – a material similar to paper, made from the pith of the papyrus plant – found in the Judean desert.
Consisting of 133 lines of text in ancient Greek, it is a court document concerning a case of 'sophisticated tax fraud' by two Jewish men during the first half of the 2nd century AD.
The text makes reference to one of the defendants 'who may be cheaply bought' with a history of 'committing violence and sedition and banditry'.
Meanwhile, his friend and accomplice is known to have 'produced counterfeited coins' – but large portions of the papyrus are missing or fragmented.
'The document is very damaged at the end,' Dr Anna Dolganov, historian at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, told MailOnline.
'But we still get a clear idea of the criminal case from the perspective of the prosecution – and tax fraud was as old as taxation itself throughout human history.'
According to the researchers, this is the best-documented Roman legal case from Judea, other than the trial of Jesus.
For the first time in 1,900 years, humans have been able to read ancient Greek text dating from the height of the Roman Empire (pictured)
The reddish-brown papyrus - about the size of A4 - was discovered in 2014 but the 'complex decipherment' of the text has taken just over a decade.
It is described as 'one of the most comprehensive legal documents ever found from the period of Roman rule in the Land of Israel'.
'This is the best-documented Roman legal case from Judea other than the trial of Jesus,' said study author Dr Avner Acker at the Hebrew University.
Although it has a big hole in the middle, experts have been able to translate enough of the text to form a detailed reconstruction of events.
It concerns a court case involving two defendants named Gedaliah and Saul, who are accused of forging documents relating to the sale and release of slaves.
This sale was not only completely imaginary, with no money changing hands, but was also not properly declared.
'We are told that Saulos arranged a fictive sale of slaves to an accomplice and later manumitted [released] one of them, all without paying the requisite Roman taxes,' said Dr Dolganov.
'Forging documents and tax evasion were considered serious crimes in the Roman Empire, punishable by hard labor and even execution.'
The 'complex decipherment' of the text (pictured) involving interpretation of each symbol has taken just over a decade
Forging documents and tax evasion were considered serious crimes in the Roman Empire, punishable by hard labor and even execution. Pictured, scenes of a Roman execution by exposure to wild beasts, Roman floor mosaic, Libya
Roman-Jewish relations in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD
Spiraling Jewish-Roman tensions resulted in several wars between the years 66 and 135 AD.
The First Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-74) resulted in a Roman victory and the Jews were subdued.
But tensions continued to build, culminating in the Diaspora Revolt (AD 115-117) and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-136).
It seems the conspirators were well acquainted with Roman law and administration, which they exploited to their advantage.
The case is recorded in the papyrus from the perspective of Roman prosecutors, preparing for the trial and analyzing the strength of the evidence available to them, including the defendants' histories.
Gedaliah, who was apparently from a respectable family and perhaps even a Roman citizen, was accused of other crimes such as violence, extortion and incitement to rebellion.
His 'friend and collaborator' Saulos, known for counterfeiting coins, may have been trying to evade taxes on his own slaves.
He could even have been trafficking young children born into slavery, or engaging in clandestine slave trade across imperial borders.
Or there may have been a more 'straightforward explanation', such as a desire for profit and tax evasion by hiding assets from the Romans.
When Roman officials became suspicious, the culprits allegedly tried to bribe a local city council to protect them.
Identities of the prosecutors remains unknown, but are likely to have been officials from the Roman fiscal administration, according to Dr Dolganov and colleagues.
Spiraling Jewish-Roman tensions resulted in several wars between the years 66 and 135 AD. This tableau shows expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem during the reign of Hadrian
The Roman Empire was a huge territorial empire that existed between 27 BC and AD 476, spanning across Europe and North Africa with Rome as its centre. This map marks out the Roman Empire in red at its greatest extent (117 AD)
'The text also mentions an informer who denounced the defendants to Roman authorities,' they say in their study, published in the journal Tyche.
Unfortunately there are details about the case that are lost, such as where it took place or the fate of Gedaliah and Saul, who blamed each other.
'But the apparent fact that they were prosecuted by the Roman administration itself augurs badly for them,' Dr Dolganov told MailOnline.
Tellingly, the court case happened not long after the Diaspora Revolt (AD 115-117), the violent Jewish uprisings in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, including including Egypt, Libya and Cyprus.
It also precedes the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-136), so a state of high alert among Roman officials at this time 'does not seem surprising', said Dr Dolganov.
Together, the two rebellions resulted in the loss of several Roman legions and the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
The trial may even have been interrupted by the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt before it mysteriously ended up in a cave in the Judean desert.
The case of Gedaliah and Saul: The full translation
Below is the translation of the scroll with lines numbered. MailOnline has excluded any lines with no surviving text
17–19 [...] it is discovered ― since the people who contrived it were Gerasenes ―that the location of the Gerasenes was substituted and over it was written the location of Gadora because it was deemed well-suited for the fraud.
20–23 Gadalias is a man who may be cheaply bought, and let not the title of 'son of a chreophylax' sway the judge. That we are telling the truth is evident, since he failed to respond to summons at four assizes of Rufus and, having been entered into the list of xenokritai who were due to be fined, was pardoned on the grounds that he was without means.
24–27 As regards his committing violence and sedition and banditry, and the money that he counterfeited, and how he escaped from prison, and how during the visit of the Emperor he extorted money from many people, among them Lectus the centurion, and how he was many times convicted and banished ― if we report on this, we will give the impression that we believe we are helpless against his great power.
28–30 All in all, after the forgery was discovered at the court of Postumus, fearing punishment they took refuge with the boule, each of them giving 125 denarii as an entry-fee (or: as revenue). For they believe that they will be relieved from punishment in the name of the boule.
31–38 If it is said on behalf of Gadalias that it had been drawn up under his father and that he produced witnesses, you will argue, first of all, that no one should be made liable for the forged document at hand other than the person presenting it; furthermore, that it was sealed under him and not under his father [...] of the centurion [...] and to deny at the court of Postumus that he/they had it, and afterwards [...] of the Gerasenes, having received from them the [...] deed/copy and that which he should have presented. For if it had been [...] in good faith [...] manner, that is the [...] buyer(?) [...]
39–44 If Saulos claims that [the blame lies(?)] with Gadalias as the one presenting [the document(?)], you will say that the instigator of the fraud [...] Saulos [...] from the buyer(?) [...] copy of his deed [...] not issuing from him. For it is not evident that he [...]
45–49 That Saulos became a friend and collaborator and accomplice in every [criminal deed linked with Gadalias(?)] you will establish from the fact that Saulos too produced counterfeited coins and that they were [denounced(?)] by certain persons on account of this, one at the court of the governor of Iudaea and the other at the court of the governor of Arabia.
50–53 And since, by virtue of his being without means [...] toward circumvention of the fiscus, having remitted what he owed him by way of a loan he used Chaereas, who bought the slaves in his own name, including Niko- [who] was never in the service of Chaereas but rather in that of Saulos.
54–59 In addition, (you will say) that Saulos and his father, wishing to manumit Onesimos the aforementioned slave and not fearing the fiscus,as we have already recounted,had the slave registered under the name of Chaereas with malicious intent. Without any money being paid, he was ultimately manumitted in the name of Chaereas, and he officially goes by that name, even though he was never his slave nor was ever in his service.
60–69 If someone says on behalf of Diocles and Chaereas that they committed no wrong, since they received a copy from the seller, then you will say that the fraud originated with them and is supported by the hatred of Saulos. The greatest proof of this is that they were discovered as they were coming from the place of Gadalias [...] the stealthy substitution [...] with the forged copy [...] complicity [...] Saulos [...] denounced the matter of Onesimos having been manumitted in the name [of Chaereas].
70–72 Because, if they were not involved in the wickedness, what compelling reason did they have to appear in Gadora if they possessed the copy from Saulos?
73–74 Memorandum/minutes of proceedings: Flaccus(?) said unto Saulos: '[...] Diocles and Chaereas [...]
75–78 [...] 7,000 drachmai [...] are confiscated.
79–81 And to manumit/the manumitted [...]
82–87 inscribed/added [...]
98–100 The advocates(?) of Chaereas(?) said(?) [...] through a public office [...] nothing [...] he wishes [...] well-to-do [...]
101–104 Primus, having been questioned whether it is true, [...] X drachmai(?) [...] the totality of the damages(?) [...] what did not [...] to their master.
105–106 Abaskantos [...] for a long time [...] nothing concerning his master's father.
107–110 Before seven witnesses(?) [...] belonging [...] by all means [...]
111 The damages(?) [...]
112–115 The strongest(?) [...] nearly [...] either in Gerasa or in Gadora(?) [...]
116–119 The deed (or: handwriting) of some of them [...] was sealed [...] The next [...] of the father [...] of the surety.
120–127 That after the sealing [...] but they manifestly wanted to [...] That the father's [lease of thechreophylakia(?)] ran out and he died [...]
128–131 Therefore on this basis [...] before the witnesses(?) [...] Therefore on this occasion [...] vacat
132–133 The one who [...] the 7,000 drachmai [...]
