Roman Empire

Roman Empire

The purpose of this article is to sketch the growth of the Roman Empire from its small beginnings down to about the middle of the 1st cent. a.d. The Empire did not stop growing at that date, but its later history hardly belongs to a Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.

1. Origins.-Rome, according to the opinion now commonly held, began with a settlement on the Palatine Hill on the left bank of the Tiber, some twenty miles from its mouth. This settlement occupied what was afterwards spoken of as Roma Quadrata, Square Rome, from the shape of the outline of the walls. It was a community of shepherds, who, along with their wives, families, and property, were protected from an enemy by the strong walls surrounding the town. Hill towns are still a feature of Italy. Other hills in the neighbourhood seem to have been occupied by similar communities, and there can be no doubt that these communities found it advisable to make an alliance with one another against their common enemies. Such an alliance had a religious sanction, and we find in early times a festival of the Septimontium in existence, the seven mountains being the Capitolinus, Palatinus, Aventinus, Caelius, Oppius, Cispius, Fagutal (the three last spurs of the afterwards named Mons Esquilinus). (The later list of the [proverbial] seven hills is not precisely the same, but consists of the first four followed by the Mons Esquilinus, the Collis Viminalis, and the Collis Quirinalis; this list is purely geographical, and has no religious significance.) The result of an attack on these combined communities by the hardier Sabines from the hills to the north and east appears to have been the defeat of the Romans, and the absorption within the population of a strong Sabine element. This fresh element led to the strengthening of the power of the united peoples. A further absorption seems to have taken place as the result of struggles with their northern neighbours on the banks of the Tiber, the mysterious Etruscans, who were believed to have come from Lydia in Asia Minor through Thrace to Italy. The presence of certain Etrurian customs as well as the ancient Etrurian street (Vicus Tuscus) in Rome proves their influence on the young city.

2. Rome under the kings.-During this early period Rome was undoubtedly governed by kings, who were heads of the army and of religion as well as of civil affairs. We cannot, however, trust all the details given by ancient historians of the events which occurred during the regal period. The broad outline may be trusted. The later kings were of Etrurian stock, and are a sign that this element in the population had become dominant. The meeting-place of the various hill communities which combined to make Rome was naturally the hollow between the hills, in the immediate vicinity of the Palatine and the Capitoline. As this place was liable to be inundated by the Tiber, a splendid scheme of drainage was carried out in the Cloaca Maxima, which survives in part to the present day. Towards the end of the regal period Rome joined the other cities of Latium in a league, in which she was destined to become the predominant partner. The meetings of the league were held on the Alban Mount. But for this league Rome could never have conquered Italy. The existence of the league made it possible gradually to do so. First the tribes nearer at hand like the Volscians were conquered.

3. Rome under the praetors.-After the expulsion of the last king, Rome was governed by two rulers, with the name generals [praetores, changed in 367 b.c. to consules, men who consult [the Senate]). Much of the history of this early period consists of dissensions between the patricians (the ruling class) and the plebeians (the dependent class). Some modern historians think that these two classes represented different tribes. In any case, the dissensions almost destroyed the community. Had it not been for Romes lucky star, the growing community would have been strangled. The constitution of the Republic was in fact being slowly hammered out by these quarrels.

The invasion and burning of Rome by a northern Celtic race, the Gauls, in 390 b.c. mark the beginning of authentic Roman history. The Romans bought temporary peace from them, but were tormented for a number of years by their incursions. The lower classes suffered deep distress at this time, with which legislation endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to cope. In the year 287 b.c. the struggle between the orders finally ceased. They were now practically on terms of equality. From this hour dates the beginning of Romes power to deal with foreign affairs.

4. Samnite Wars.-But we are anticipating. The period 367 to 290 b.c. was one of great struggle. The Romans were now united at Rome and had secured the predominance in the Latin league, when they were called upon to fight the most dangerous enemy they had yet had to deal with. The long contest was for supremacy in Italy. The Samnites inhabited the central area of Italy, the Appenines, but frequently over-ran the rich plains at their feet. The war began by their attack on the Sidicini, a neutral people between Campania and Samnium. Campania supported the Sidicini and Rome supported Campania. The Romans were victorious in this first war (343-341) at Mt. Gaurus, but concluded peace with the Samnites because of internal dissensions and difficulties near home. This war was followed by war with the Latins (340-338), in which the Samnites fought on the Roman side. The contest was to decide whether the Latins should be subjects of Rome or not. It was fought in Campania, and by 338 b.c. the Romans had proved complete victors. In that year the league was dissolved, and special arrangements were made with individual parties to the old league. Assistance lent by the Samnites to Greek cities in Campania was the occasion of the second Samnite war (326-304). During the first five years the Romans were for the most part successful. This period was followed by a one years truce, which was broken before its end. In 321 the two Roman consuls sustained a disgraceful defeat at the Caudine Forks, a pass in Campania, and the army had to pass under the yoke. For several years afterwards fortune favoured the Samnites, but in 314 the consuls scored a decisive victory. This was followed by others, interrupted only by an Etruscan war in 311. In 304 the Samnites asked for peace, which was granted, and they were admitted to alliance with Rome. About 300 the Roman power seemed established in central Italy. In the third and last Samnite war (298-290), however, Rome had to face a coalition of Etruscans, Senonian Gauls, Umbrians, and Samnites. In 295 the desperate battle of Sentinum was fought, which resulted in a victory for Rome. The Samnites, however, continued to struggle on, until in 290 they finally gave up the contest. Romes mastery in Italy was now assured, though it took about a quarter of a century more to subdue the whole peninsula.

5. Conquest of Greek cities of South Italy.-The next stage in Romes career of battle was carried out in connexion with the Greek cities in the south of Italy. The people of Tarentum called in the assistance of a Greek filibuster, Pyrrhus of Epirus, who gave the Romans trouble from 281 to 275 b.c., in which year he returned to Greece finally defeated. In 272 Tarentum fell. Soon after, every nation in Italy south of the 44th parallel of latitude owned Romes supremacy. She was now the first power of the Western world, and one of the first powers of the ancient world. But empire was not her intention. She gave the cities of Italy self-government, and as far as possible incorporated them with the Roman State. The free inhabitants of Italy consisted now of (a) Roman citizens, residents in Roman territory and in coloniae, and individuals in municipia on whom citizenship had been conferred; (b) inhabitants of municipia (certain country towns) who had the citizenship of Rome (i.e. the right of trading and intermarriage) but not the right of voting or of holding office; (c) socii (allies), divided into two classes-(i.) Latini, who stood in a relation to Rome like that of the parties to the old Latin league, and had the capacity for acquiring Roman citizenship, by going to Rome or (later) by holding a magistracy in their own towns; (ii.) the free and allied cities, comprising all the rest of Italy, which had a military alliance with Rome, regulated either by foedus (formal treaty) or by lex data (a charter).

6. First and Second Punic Wars.-The signal career of Rome in extra-Italian conquest begins with the First Punic War (264-241 b.c). At this period Carthage, in the Tunis district, was mistress of the western Mediterranean. Rome was not as yet a naval power, but amongst her new Greek subjects (or allies) in southern Italy there were many traders by sea, and these had to be protected. Carthage had by means of mercenary troops conquered Sardinia and Corsica, and now aimed at the possession of Sicily. The western part, having been already planted with colonies from her parent city of Tyre, fell an easy prey to her, but the rest of the island was studded with Greek cities, which were not prepared to give up their free constitutions for the oligarchical tyranny of Semitic barbarians. The city of Messana (modern Messina) in the N.E. part of Sicily was the immediate cause of the outbreak of war between the Romans and the Carthaginians. Messana was at the time in the possession of Italian mercenaries, called Mamertini, who had conquered and taken possession of the city some time before. They grew great enough to menace the power of Hiero, the Greek king of Syracuse. He shut them up in their city, and they appealed for help to Rome. If Rome had refused, they would have appealed to Carthage. This fact determined the Roman people-for the Senate hesitated greatly, knowing, the responsibility this fresh step would entail-to give the support the Mamertini sought. The Carthaginians must not be allowed to occupy a place so close to Italy. But the delay had allowed the admission of a Carthaginian garrison, by whose means peace had been concluded with Hiero. The Romans could thus have retired altogether from the situation, had not a Roman legate persuaded the Mamertini to expel the Carthaginian garrison. Hiero and the Carthaginians next proceeded to lay siege to Messana, and the Romans declared war against them (264). The contest, with breaks was fated to last for about one hundred and twenty years. Rome had to build a fleet. She was for the most part victorious throughout the first war, but Regulus, who had invaded Africa, the territory of the Carthaginians, was defeated and taken captive. The battles in this war were for the most part naval, and a final naval victory in 242 made it possible to reduce the Carthaginian strongholds in Sicily (241). By the terms of the peace Carthage had to evacuate Sicily and the neighbouring islands. Thus was the first Roman province formed (see under Province).

The Second Punic War did not begin till 218. It differed from the first chiefly in two respects. In the interval Carthage had conquered Spain and thus had a new base of operations, and the second war was fought on land. In 238 the Carthaginians had had to fight their own rebellious mercenary troops, and Rome took advantage of this state of affairs to demand Sardinia and Corsica, which were made into a second province. This is probably the only instance of unjustifiable acquisition of territory in Romes long history. Illyrian and Gallic wars occupied the rest of the interval. North Italy had been thus opened up (the Via Flaminia had been built from Rome to Ariminum in 220 b.c.). Hannibal in 218 left New Carthage and crossed the Rhone and the Alps. He defeated the Romans successively at the Ticinus and Trebia (Dec. 218) in North Italy, at the Trasimene lake in Etruria (217), and at Cannae in Apulia (216). The fidelity of Romes most important allies in Italy, the inability of Hannibals army to conduct successful siege operations, and other factors preserved Rome at this crisis. The further stages of the war may be compared with the later phases of the South African War. The Roman army was broken up into many small portions, leading strategic points were well garrisoned, and flying columns were dispatched over Italy, Capua, Tarentum, and Syracuse (in Sicily) were in turn lost and recovered. A Roman attempt to divert Hannibals attention by attacking Spain was attended with disaster, but Hasdrubal, who came from Spain to join his brother Hannibal, was signally defeated by the Romans at the Metaurus (207). Hannibal then retired to the very south of Italy. Meantime the youthful P. Scipio had conquered a great part of Spain. On obtaining the province of Sicily (205 b.c.) he crossed over into Africa. Hannibal, who had been recalled in consequence, was defeated by Scipio at the battle of Zama (202). By the treaty of next year the war was brought to an end, and Carthage lost all her foreign possessions.

7. Macedonian Wars.-The possession of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and Spain (or rather the Spains, for the Romans always distinguished between Hither and Further Spain), the last of which was made into two provinces in 197, made the Romans the greatest power in the ancient world. Philip, king of Macedonia, had been an ally of Hannibal. His attack on the two towns Oricum and Apollonia on the Illyrian side of the Adriatic, which had recently come into the possession of the Romans, drew Rome into the vortex of Eastern politics. The Romans at the close of the First Macedonian War (214-205) made peace with Philip, so that they might be left free to deal with Africa. The Second Macedonian War was declared in 200, and was brought to a successful end by the battle of Cynoscephalae (197). In the following year Greece was declared free from the yoke of Macedon. Discontent among Romes Greek allies led to war with the Seleucid king Antiochus, ally of Hannibal and Philip, who crossed to Greece by invitation. Having been defeated by the Romans at Thermopylae (191), he returned to Asia and was there defeated again, at Magnesia (190). He was compelled to give up all his Asia Minor dominions north of Mt. Taurus. Soon after, the Galatians (Celts) of Central Asia Minor were defeated, and Asia was organized (188). The Romans did not take over Asia at this time, but strengthened the power of the king of Pergamum and that of the State of Rhodes, to keep Antiochus out. About the same period the Gauls in the north of Italy had to be subdued, and from this time (191) Cisalpine Gaul was a Roman province. After the Ligurian War Roman influence reached as far as the Alps instead of the Apennines.

Romes protectorate over the East did not yet pass unquestioned. Perseus, son of Philip and his successor as king of Macedon, had been making preparations against Rome. The Third Macedonian War ended with victory for the Romans at Pydna (168). The Macedonian monarchy was finally overthrown, but Rome, following her usual policy in the East, did not annex the country but divided it into four districts, each under an oligarchical council. Stirrings and dissensions in Greece and Macedonia led in 146 to the destruction of Corinth by Mummius, and the constitution of the first eastern province, Achaea, which comprised both countries.

8. Third Punic War.-In the same year the Third and last Punic War resulted in the siege and destruction of Carthage and the formation of the province of Africa, consisting of her former territory. The province of Asia was constituted on the death of Attalus, king of Pergamum, in 133 b.c. having been left by his will to the Roman people (129). About 121 b.c. Gallia Narbonensis was made a province, on the conquest of the southern portion of Transalpine Gaul, between the Alps and the Pyrenees. It must not be supposed that there was complete peace in all these territories from the moment they were formally annexed. Many of Romes wars, which have to be passed over without mention in this article, were connected with the consolidation of a power already defined.

9. The Social War.-A most important event was the Social War (90-80 b.c.), the result of which was that the territory of the city-State Rome now stretched from a point a little to the north of Florence as far as the extreme south of Italy. All freeborn persons within that area were now cives Romani, with all that that implied.

10. Mithradatic Wars.-Soon after, the Romans had to meet one of the direst enemies in all their long history, Mithradates (120-63), king of Pontus, south of the Black Sea. His father by favour of the Romans had been given Phrygia also, but this the Romans took from the son in his minority. The war between Mithradates and the Romans was due to the formers aggressions and his interference with the kingdoms protected by the Romans. He kept the whole of the Near East in a ferment. The first stage (88-84) was concluded by a peace, according to the terms of which Mithradates agreed to give up his conquests. The Second Mithradatic War was entirely due to the aggression of a Roman general Murena (83), and was with some difficulty concluded by a peace in the next year. Mithradates now seriously trained his army to meet the Roman style of warfare. The Third and last War was begun in 75 b.c., when King Nicomedes of Bithynia left his country by will to the Roman people, and Bithynia was in consequence declared a Roman province. Mithradates supported a claimant to the throne, and the war began. Roman armies sustained defeats. Tigranes, king of Armenia, joined Mithradates, and the combined forces needed the best generalship the Romans had to cope with them. Lucullus distinguished himself greatly, but the result was fruitless, and in 66 Lucullus had to make way for Pompey, who had just defeated the Cilician pirates. Pompey succeeded in defeating Mithradates and in conquering Armenia. He reduced Pontus and thereafter Syria (64) to the state of Roman provinces. There was now a chain of Roman provinces from the Black Sea to the Euphrates, but client States were retained along the frontier.

11. Acquisition of Gaul.-The next stage in the growth of the Roman Empire is the acquisition of Gaul, which corresponds roughly to modern France, by the generalship of Gains Julius Caesar (58-49 b.c.). Caesar was one of the three most powerful men in the State, but was without means, and was anxious to obtain a command which would enable him to emulate Pompeys achievements in the East and eventually obtain supreme power. By the arrangement of the coalition in 60 he obtained the provinces of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for five years (58-54). Transalpine Gaul was shortly afterwards added. The details of Caesars stubborn campaigns need not be here entered into. In addition to conquering the whole of Transalpine Gaul (except Gallia Narbonensis, already a Roman province), he twice crossed the Rhine and twice entered Britain. His period of command was extended for a further five years. His conquests secured Rome a northern frontier and saved the Empire for centuries.

12. Civil War.-In 49 b.c. civil war broke out, and for a number of years there could be no thought of extending the Empire. During the civil war, the eastern provinces, roughly speaking, were on Pompeys side and the western on Caears; later, Antony held most of the cast against Octavian.

13. Rome under the Emperors.-In 31 b.c. Egypt was acquired by Octavian, and henceforward the Roman Emperors reigned there as kings. About the same time Octavian re-organized the eastern provinces. On 16th Jan. 27 b.c. the provinces were apportioned between the Senate and Augustus (see Province). Though the greater part of Spain had long been part of the provincial system, the hardy tribes of the north-west, the Cantabri and Astures, had never been subdued. Between 26 and 20 b.c. Augustus and Agrippa succeeded in quelling them, and a new province, Lusitania, was formed. On the death of the client king Amyntas in 25 b.c. all the northern and western part of his kingdom was taken over and made into the province Galatia. The boundaries of this province changed with the changing sphere of duty which covered all the central part of Asia Minor. It retained its importance down to a.d. 72, when Cappadocia became a consular province with an army, whereas in a.d. 17 it had been created merely a procuratorial province. Augustus spent 21-19 b.c. regulating the East, and in 16-13 visited Gaul. There he aimed at fixing the north-west frontier of the Empire. His first intention was to fix the limit at the Elbe and the Danube. The tribes of the Tyrol, the Rhaeti, Vindelici, and Norici were conquered in 15, and the Alpine tribes in 14-13. After a number of campaigns the dream of an Elbe frontier had to be given up, and the Rhine was reluctantly substituted. The Rhine-Danube frontier is much longer than the other, and was therefore much more difficult and expensive to defend. The reign of Tiberius (a.d. 14-37) saw the annexation of Cappadocia, as has been said. Gaius (Caligula) (37-41) pursued a somewhat retrograde policy. He restored to Antiochus of Commagene the realm which Tiberius had taken from his father. A similar policy was pursued in Palestine. In Thrace the former kingdom of Cotys was given to his son RhCEmetalces, and further territory in Thrace was added to it. To Polemo was gifted Pontus Polemoniacus, and to Cotys, younger brother of RhCEmetalces, lesser Armenia. Mauritania was taken over and afterwards (under Claudius) divided into two provinces, named Caesariensis and Tingitana. In Africa the legion was taken from the senatorial proconsul and put under the command of a special legatus. Under Claudius (41-54) many important administrative changes were made in the provinces. In Germany and Pannonia the extensive operations resulted in no addition to the Empire, but Thrace was at last made a province under a procurator in 46. Lycia was united to Pamphylia as a province under one governor in 43. Macedonia and Achaia, which under Tiberius had been governed by an Imperial legatus, were restored to the Senate as two separate provinces. In 44 Judaea , which had been for a time under the rule of Herod Agrippa, was put under a procurator.

The most interesting event of Claudius reign is, however, the annexation of Britain. Britain had been invaded twice by Julius Caesar, but had never been conquered, still less annexed. It was reserved for Claudius to make the southern half of England into the province Britannia, which he visited in person. The Roman forces numbered between 40,000 and 70,000 and were under the command of A. Plautius Silvanus. The first objective seems to have been Essex and Hertford; Camalodunum (Colchester), the capital of the Trinovantes, was taken and made the capital of the new province. Plautius, the conqueror of the province, remained till 47 as legatus Augusti pro praetore. During this period the Romans penetrated at least as far as Somersetshire. At the end of Plautius command the country comprised within a line drawn from hath through Silchester, as far as London, with a loop enclosing Colchester, was Roman. Plautius successor, P. Ostorius Scapula (47-52) conquered the Iceni and drew a line of forts across the country from Gloucester to Colchester. His greatest achievements were along the Welsh border. A fresh advance was made under Nero (54-68), when Suetonius Paulinus was appointed governor (59). His first two years were probably spent in subduing North Wales. An insurrection meantime broke out among the Iceni in the East. On the death of their king their territory had been added be the province. A rising of the Iceni and Trinovantes, who massacred 70,000 Romans and their allies, recalled Suetonius to the East. He took a terrible vengeance. The after history of the province is full of interest, but cannot be pursued here. For the Armenian wars of Nero see under Nero. His reign saw the addition of two provinces to the Roman Empire, Pontus Polemoniacus and Alpes Cottiae.

Literature.-The best large history is T. Mommsen, Rmische Geschichte, vols. i.-iii. (Republic). vol. v. (Provinces under Empire), last ed., 1904. Eng. translation in 7 volumes (5 vols. Republic, best ed., 1894; 2 vols. Provinces, best ed., 1909); the best small histories are H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History4, 1903; and J. B. Bury, A History of the Roman Empire2, 1896; on a smaller scale still, but very good, are W. Smith. A Smaller History of Rome, now ed., 1898; M. A. Hamilton, A Junior History of Rome to the Death of Caesar, 1910. There are maps of Imperium Romanum in Kieperts Atlas Antiquus (no. 12), 1885. Perthes Atlas Antiquus 1895; Murrays Handy Classical Maps; Smith, op. cit., p. 344; Bury, op. cit., pp. 83, 103. There is a handy list of Roman provinces with details in Companion to Latin Studies, ed. Sandys. 1910, pp. 401-409. On the fascinating subject of the Roman northern frontier the best account in English is E. G. Hardy, Studies in Roman History, 2nd ser., 1909, pp. 1-129: further details in German and Austrian journals specially devoted to the subject. On Britain see F. J. Haverfield, Romanization of Roman Britain3, 1915, and, for details of individual sites, his contributions to the Victoria County History, 1900 ff.; on Roman London his classic article in JRS [Note: RS Journal of Roman Studies.] i. [1911-12].

A. Souter.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Roman Empire

the government of the Romans as conducted by the emperors, of whom Augustus was the first. The history of the Roman Empire, properly so called, extends over a period of rather more than five hundred years, viz. from the battle of Actium, B.C. 31, when Augustus became ruler of the Roman world, to the abdication of Augustulus, A.D. 476. The empire, however, in the sense of the dominion of Rome over a large number of conquered nations, was in full force and had reached wide limits some time before the monarchy of Augustus was established. The notices of Roman histora which occur in the Bible are confined to the last century and a half of the commonwealth and the first century of the imperial monarchy. But in order to appreciate these, some particulars of the condition of the Roman state is necessary. We have not, however, the intention of entering into an account of the rise, progress, state, and decline of the Roman power, but merely to set forth a few of the more essential facts, speaking a little less briefly of the relations formed and sustained between the Romans and the Jews. These, although comparatively late, became eventually important to the last degree. For a description of the capital city, SEE ROME.

I. History. The foundations of Rome lie in an obscurity from which the criticism of Niebuhr has done little more than remove the legendary charm. Three tribes, however, according to the oldest account, formed the earliest population namely, the Ramnenses (probably Romanenses, still further abbreviated into Ramnes), the Titienses (shortened into Tities, from Titus Tatius, their head), and the Luceres (probably an Etruscan horde, who migrated to Rome from Solonium, under Lucumo). In order to increase his population, and with a view to that conquest which he afterwards achieved, and which was only a small prelude to the immense dominion subsequently acquired, Romulus opened in Rome an asylum, inviting thereto those who, for whatever cause, fled from the neighboring cities. To Rome accordingly there flocked the discontented, the guilty, the banished, and the aspiring, freemen and slaves. Thus were laid the foundations of the future mistress of the world, according to the ordinary reckoning, B.C. 753, the number of inhabitants at the first not exceeding, it is supposed, four thousand souls. What it arose to in the period of its greatest extent we have not the means of ascertaining. (See below.)

Though the date of the foundation of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning of the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the beginning of the 2d century B.C. that the Romans had leisure to interfere in the affairs of the East. When, however, the power of Carthage had been effectually broken at Zama, B.C. 202, Roman arms and intrigues soon made themselves felt throughout Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible is 1Ma 1:10, where it is stated that there arose a wicked root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome. About the year B.C. 161, when Judas Maccabaeus heard of the defeat of Philip, Perseus, and Antiochus, and of the great fame of the Romans, he sent an embassy to them to solicit an alliance, and to obtain protection against the Syrian government (1Ma 8:1 sq.; comp. 2Ma 11:34; Josephus, Ant. 12, 10, 6; Justin, 36, 3).

The ambassadors were graciously received, and Demetrius was ordered to desist from harassing the Jews; but before the answer arrived Judas was slain, having valiantly engaged the whole army of Bacchides sent by Demetrius into Judaea (1Ma 11:1-18; Josephus, Ant. 12, 11, 1). In B.C. 143, Jonathan renewed the alliance with the Romans (1Ma 12:1-4; 1Ma 12:16; Josephus, Ant. 13, 5, 8), the embassy being admitted before the senate ( ), and on his death, the same year, his brother Simon, who succeeded him, sent also to Rome to again seek a renewal of friendship. The Romans readily acceded to his request, and the valiant deeds of Simon and his predecessors were engraved on tables of brass. Shortly afterwards, Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold, of a thousand pounds’ weight, to confirm the league with them. The senate at once consented to its reestablishment, and recognized him as high priest and prince of Judaea. The tables of brass on which the league was written were set up in the Temple (1Ma 14:17 sq.; Josephus, Ant. 13, 7, 3). Lucius, the consul of the Romans, wrote to several kings and nations requesting them to assist the Jews (1Ma 15:16-23). See Lycus. Hyrcanus, the successor of Maccabeus, again sent (in B.C. 129) an embassy to Rome, which was favorably received, confirming the alliance already concluded (Josephuis, Ant. 13, 9, 2). In the year B.C. 66, Pompey arrived in the East to take command of the Roman armies, and sent his general, Scaurus, to Syria. While at Damascus, the latter received an offer of 400 talents from Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, who were both fighting for the kingdom, each one wishing to be aided. Scaurus accepted the offer of Aristobulus, and ordered Aretas, who was assisting Hyrcanus, to withdraw his forces, or he would be declared an enemy to the Romans (ibid. 14, 2, 3).

The following year Pompey came into Syria, and deprived Antiochus XIII (Asiaticus) of his kingdom, reducing it to a Roman province. Ambassadors were sent to Pompey from the rival princes, and in B.C. 64, when Pompey returned to Damascus from Asia Minor, their respective causes were heard by him. Notwithstanding the prejudices of the people in favor of Aristobulus, Pompey, perceiving the weakness of character and imbecility of Hyrcanus, seemed to incline towards the latter, knowing that it was better to have a weak man under the Roman control. He, however, left the matter undecided, and Aristobulus, seeing that his case was lost, withdrew to make preparations for defense (ibid. 14, 2, 3). Pompey then occupied himself in reducing the forces of Aretas, and afterwards marched against Aristobulus, who fled to Jerusalem. Aristobulus, on his approach, met him, and offered him a large sum of money, and Pompey sent Gabinius to receive it; but on his arrival at Jerusalem he found the gates closed. Aristobulus was then thrown into prison, and Pompey marched to Jerusalem. Hyrcanus opened the gates to him, while the party of Aristobulus, including the priests, shut themselves up in the Temple and withstood a siege of three months. Pompey, observing that the Jews did not work on the seventh day, gained material advantage, and at last took the place by assault, killing, according to Josephus, as many as 12,000 persons, even desecrating the Temple by entering the holy of holies (comp. Tacitus, Hist. 5, 9), though he did not touch any of the treasures. Hyrcanus was then appointed high priest and governor of the country, but was forbidden to wear a diadem (comp. Josephus, Ant. 20, 10). Tribute was also exacted of him, and Pompey took Aristobulus and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus, prisoners to Rome, whence thev subsequently escaped (ibid. 14, 3, 2; 4, 2; 3, 4; War, 1, 7, 6; Strabo, 16, p. 763).

The restoration of Hyrcanus was, however, merely nominal, as the Idumaean Antipater, an active friend of the Romans, was placed over him as governor of Judaea. Now began the struggle which was destined to continue with little intermission for nearly two hundred years. It was nourished by feelings of the deadliest animosity on both sides; it was signalized by the most frightful examples of barbarity, in which each of the contending parties strove to outdo the other; but it was directed by a controlling Providence to a beneficial consummation, in the destruction of the Jewish nationality, and the dispersion throughout the world of the Christian communities. (See Merivale, Romans under the Empire [Lond. 1865, 8 vols. 8vo], vol. 21, ch. 29, where the events of the period are admirably summed up). In the year B.C. 57, Alexander, the eldest son of Aristobulus, escaped from Pompey, and took up arms in Judaea. Hyrcanus upon this applied for assistance to Gabinius, the Roman proconsul of Syria, who thereupon sent Mark Antony with a large force into Judaea. Antony, being joined by Antipater with the forces of Hyrcanus, defeated Alexander, and compelled him to fly to Alexandrium. Gabinius soon after arrived, and, through the mediation of the mother of Alexander, made peace with him and allowed him to depart. After these matters were settled, Gabinius went to Jerusalem, and there committed the care of the Temple to Hyrcanus, thus changing the government from a monarchy to an aristocracy. At the same time, he instituted five councils () instead of the two sanhedrims which had existed in every city, and he distributed these five among five cities. These were Jerusalem, Gadara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sepphoris, in Galilee (Josephus, Ant. 14, 5, 4). In B.C. 54 Gabinius was superseded in the government of Syria by Crassus, who plundered the Temple of about 10,000 talents, not withstanding that a beam of gold of immense value I had been given him, on condition that he would touch nothing else in the Temple (ibid. 14, 7, 1). All this time Antipater was gaining influence with the Romans; and after the death of Pompey, in B.C. 48, he was very useful to Julius Caesar in his war against Egypt. In return for this, he made Antipater procurator of Judaea, gave him the privilege of a citizen of Rome. and freedom from taxes everywhere.

Hyrcanus also was confirmed in the priesthood and ethnarchy, the claims of Antigonus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus, being set aside, and thus the aristocratical constitution of Gabinius was abolished (ibid. 14). The ascendency and prosperity of Antipater were now insured. At this period he had four sons. Two of them, Phasael and Herod, were holding important posts, the former being governor of Jerusalem, and the latter governor of Galilee. Finally, Antipater’s son, Herod the Great, was made king by Antony’s interest, B.C. 40, and confirmed in the kingdom by Augustus, B.C. 30 (ibid. 14, 14; 15, 6). The Jews, however, were all this time tributaries of Rome, and their princes in reality were mere Roman procurators. Julius Ceesar is said to have exacted from them a fourth part of their agricultural produce in addition to the tithe paid to Hyrcanus (ibid. 14, 10, 6). Roman soldiers were quartered at Jerusalem in Herod’s time to support him in his authority (ibid. 15, 3, 7). Tribute was paid to Rome, and an oath of allegiance to the emperor as well as to Herod appears to have been taken by the people (ibid. 17,2, 2). On the banishment of Archelaus, A.D. 6, Judsea became a mere appendage of the province of Syria, and was governed by a Roman procurator, who resided at Cesarea. Galilee and the adjoining districts were still left under the government of Herod’s sons and other petty princes, whose dominions and titles were changed from time to time by successive emperors. SEE HEROD.

The Jewish people, being at last worn out with the disputes and cruelties of the Herods, sent a mission to Rome, begging that Judaea might be made a Roman province. In the year A.D. 6, Archelaus was banished, and Judaea put under the government of Rome. The first procurator appointed was Coponius, who accompanied Cyrenius (the Greek form of the Roman name Quirinus) into Syria. The latter had been sent to take an account of their substance, and to make a census or , SEE CHRONOLOGY; SEE CYRENIUS, of the inhabitants of Judaea (Luke 2, 1; Josephus, Ant. 17, 13, 5; 18, 1, 1; War, 2, 8, 1). In A.D. 9 Coponius was succeeded by Marcus Ambivius, who remained at the head of the government till A.D. 12, and was then replaced by Annius Rufus. On the accession of Tiberius, Valerius Gratus was made procurator, a post he filled for eleven years, and was succeeded (A.D. 26) by Pontius Pilate (Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, 2), who entered Jerusalem with the military ensigns, on which were the effigies of the emperor. The Jewish law forbids the making of images, and a great tumult arose, and shortly Tiberius ordered him to withdraw them (ibid. 18, 3, 1; War, 2, 9, 3). Pilate tyrannically governed the Jews till A.D. 36; and at last, owing to continual complaints, was ordered by Vitellius, the president of Syria, to proceed to Rome to give an account of his administration. Tiberius died before he arrived, and he put an end to his life at the commencement of the reign of Caius (Caligula) (Josephus, Ant. 18, 3, 1-3; 4, 1; War, 2, 9, 2; Euseb. H.E. 2, 7). It was during his administration that our Lord was condemned and crucified (Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luk 3:1; Luke 23; John 18; John 19). On Pilate’s departure, Marullus was appointed over Judaea by Vitellius (Josephus, Ant. 18, 4, 2).

The new emperor, Caius, however, superseded him, and appointed Marcellus procurator of Judaea (ibid. 18, 6, 10). In A.D. 40 Vitellius was recalled, and Petronius sent as president of Syria, with orders from Caius to set up his statue in the Temple. This insult caused the whole nation to rise. The intercession of Agrippa, and ultimately the death of the tyrant, prevented this order from ever being executed (ibid. 18; War, 2, 10; Philo, Leg. ad Caiumn, 26). In the Acts it is recorded that the churches had rest through all Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria (9, 31), doubtless owing to the impious attempt of Caligula (Josephus, Ant. 18, 8, 2-9). Under Claudius, who succeeded to the throne in A.D. 41, the Jews had some peace. Agrippa I was nominally king from that period to A.D. 44, when he died, leaving one son. Claudius wished to allow the young Agrippa to rule his father’s kingdom, but, evidently by persuasion, sent a Roman procurator to govern the province (Tacit. Hist. 5, 9). Cuspius Fadus was the first appointed (Josephus, Ant. 19, 9, 2; 20, 5, 1), A.D. 45. It was under his administration that a movement of the whole Jewish people broke forth, in consequence of the sacred vestments being placed under his charge. Longinus, the governor of Syria, interfered, an embassy was sent to Rome, and the matter ended in the Jews being permitted to retain these vestments under their care. Judaea was cleared of robbers by the care and providence of Fadus (ibid. 20, 1, 1, 2). He was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander, a renegade Jew, and nephew of Philo (ibid. 20, 5, 2; War, 2, 11, 6). In A.D. 49 Tiberius was recalled, and Ventidius Cumanus appointed in his stead. During his government a fearful tumult ensued, which would have spread far and wide had not Quadratus, the governor of Syria, interfered. The matter ended in the banishment of Cumanus and the appointment of Felix, the brother of Pallas, the favorite of Claudius, as procurator (Ant. 20, 6; 7, 1; War, 2, 12; comp. Tacit. Ann. 12, 54).

Felix was procurator A.D. 53-55. Of his government Tacitus speaks: Per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit (Hist. 5, 9), and his corruptness is shown by his expecting to receive money from St. Paul (Act 24:26). He had induced Drusilla, the daughter of Agrippa I, to live with him. She was with him when Paul preached of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come (ver. 25). Felix, however, did some good services while he was in power; for, the country being infested with robbers and impostors, he cleared several parts of it. He also drove out the Egyptian impostor (comp. Act 21:38). These are, doubtless, the very worthy deeds alluded to by Tertullus (24, 2). Bearing ill will against Jonathan, the high priest, Felix had him barbarously murdered. By treachery, also, he put to death Eleazar, the captain of a company of robbers (Josephus, Ant. 20, 8, 5). At last his misgovernment caused his recall, and Porcius Festus succeeded. His government seems to have been milder (ibid. 21, 8, 9; War, 2, 14, 1). He heard Paul with king Agrippa at Caesarea (Acts 25; Acts 26). Festus died after two years. He was succeeded by Albinus, a bad and cruel man, who, on hearing that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, brought out all the prisoners who seemed most worthy of death, and put them to death, and at the same time released many of them, but only on receiving a bribe (Josephus, Ant. 20, 9, 5; War, 2, 14, 1). He was recalled in A.D. 65, and Gessius Florus appointed in his stead. He was the last and the worst of the Roman procurators (Ant. 20, 9, 1; 11, 1; War, 2, 14, 1). Josephus does not hesitate to accuse him of the most flagrant and horrid crimes (Ant. 20, 11, 1; War, loc. cit.); and even Tacitus says that the Jewish patience could endure the yoke no longer duravit patientia Judaeis usque ad Gessium Florum (Hist. 5, 10). In A.D. 66, Cestius Gallus, the praefect of Syria, found it necessary to march a powerful army into Palestine. He was, however, defeated with great loss, and immediately sent word to Nero, laying the whole blame on Florus Florus, likewise, laying the blame on him. He soon afterwards died, as some have supposed, from chagrin or disappointment (Josephus, War, 2, 19; Sueton. Vesp. 4; Tacit. Hist. 5, 10). SEE GOVERNOR. The following year Nero sent Vespasian into Judaea (Josephus, War, 3, 1, 2). (Accounts of the war and siege of Jerusalem will be found in the article SEE JERUSALEM.) In 68, Nero died; Galba, Otho, and Vitellius followed in quick succession; and Vespasian himself was elected emperor by the legions in Judaea. In A.D. 70, Titus was sent by his father to conduct the war; and after a four months’ siege Jerusalem was taken. Josephus states that 1,100,000 were killed during the siege (ibid. 6, 9, 3), that several were allowed to depart, and an immense number sold to the army and carried captive. These numbers are of course exaggerated See Luk 21:24.

Under Trajan the Jews again broke out into open revolt, and the disturbances continued under Hadrian. At last, A.D. 131, one Bar-cocheba, the son of a star, was placed at the head of the Jews. Several times the Roman arms were defeated; but Julius Severus, by reducing their fortresses one by one, finally defeated him in A.D. 135. Dion Cassius says that 580,000 Jewish people were slain in these battles (69, 14). This statement is as extravagant as that of Josephus (ut sup.).

In A.D. 136 the emperor Hadrian founded a new city, under the name of AElia Capitolina, to which he gave the privileges of a colony. None but Christians and pagans were allowed to enter (Dion Cass. 69, 12; comp. Gibbon).

The New Test. history falls within the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Only Augustus (Luk 2:1), Tiberius (3, 1), and Claudius (Act 11:28; Act 18:2) are mentioned; but Nero is alluded to in the Acts from ch. 35 to the end, and in Php 4:22. The Roman emperor in the New Test. is usually called Caesar (Act 25:10-12; Act 25:21), though sometimes Augustus (, ver. Act 21:25), and once Lord ( , ver. 26). We thus find many characteristics of the Roman rule constantly before us in the New Test.: we hear of Caesar the sole king (Joh 19:15) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria (Luk 2:2); of Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the governors, i.e. procurators, of Judaea; of the tetrarchs Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (3:1); of king Agrippa (Act 25:13); of Roman soldiers, legions, centurions, publicans; of the tributemoney (Mat 22:19); the taxing of the whole world (Luk 2:1); Italian and Augustan cohorts (Act 10:15; Act 27:1); the appeal to Caesar (Act 25:11). Several notices of the provincial administration of the Romans and the condition of provincial cities occur in the narrative of Paul’s journeys (Act 13:7; Act 18:12; Act 16:12; Act 16:35; Act 16:38; Act 19:38). SEE JUDEA.

II. Extent of the Empire. Cicero’s description of the Greek states and colonies as a fringe on the skirts of barbarism (Cicero, De Rep. 2, 4) has been well applied to the Roman dominions before the conquests of Pompey and Caesar (Merivale, Rom. Empire, 4, 409). The Roman empire was still confined to a narrow strip encircling the Mediterranean Sea. Pompey added Asia Minor and Syria; Caesar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus overran the northwest portion of Spain and the country between the Alps and the Danube. The boundaries of the empire were now, the Atlantic on the west; the Euphrates on the east; the deserts of Africa, the cataracts of the Nile, and the Arabian deserts on the south; the British Channel, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Black Sea on the north. The only subsequent conquests of importance were those of Britain by Claudius, and of Dacia by Trajan. The only independent powers of importance were the Parthians on the east and the Germans on the north.

The population of the empire in the time of Augustus has been calculated at 85,000,000 (Merivale, Rom. Empire, 4, 442-450). Gibbon, speaking of the time of Claudius, puts the population at 120,000,000 (Decline and Fall, ch. 2). Count Franz de Champagny adopts the same number for the reign of Nero (Les Cesars, 2, 428). All these estimates are confessedly somewhat uncertain and conjectural.

This large population was controlled, in the time of Tiberius, by an army of twenty-five legions, exclusive of the praetorian guards and other cohorts in the capital. The soldiers who composed the legions may be reckoned in round numbers at 170,000 men. If we add to these an equal number of auxiliaries (Tacit. Ann. 4, 5), we have a total force of 340,000 men. The praetorian guards may be reckoned at 10, 000 (Dion Cass. 4, 24). The other cohorts would swell the garrison at Rome to 15,000 or 16,000 men. For the number and stations of the legions in the time of Tiberius, comp. Tacit. Ann. 4, 5.

The navy may have contained about 21,000 men (Les Cesars, 2, 429; comp. Merivale, 3, 534). The legion, as appears from what has been said, must have been more like a brigade than a regiment, consisting, as it did, of more than 6000 infantry with cavalry attached (Conybeare and Howson, 2, 285).

III. Home Rule. The Roman government was at first kingly. Romulus, the first monarch, was probably succeeded by six others, during a period of two hundred and forty-four years, till in the year B.C. 509 kingly government was abolished when in the hands of Tarquinius Superbus, in consequence of his arrogant and oppressive despotism. A consular form of government succeeded, which was at the first of an essentially aristocratic character, but was compelled to give way by degrees to popular influence, till men of plebeian origin made their way to the highest offices and first honors in the State, when the government became an oligarchy; then fell into anarchy, from which it was rescued by the strong hand of Octavius Csesar, who became sole master of the world by defeating Antony at Actium on Sept. 2, A.D. 723 (B.C. 31), though it was not till the year 725 that the senate named Octavius Imperator, nor till the year 727 that he received the sacred title of Augustus I. When Augustus became sole ruler of the Roman world, he was in theory simply the first citizen of the republic, intrusted with temporary powers to settle the disorders of the State. Tacitus says that he was neither king nor dictator, but prince (Ann. 1, 9), a title implying no civil authority, but simply the position of chief member of the senate (princeps senatus). The old magistracies were retained, but the various powers and prerogatives of each were conferred upon Augustus, so that while others commonly bore the chief official titles, Augustus had the supreme control of every department of the State above all, he was the emperor (imperator). This word, used originally to designate any one intrusted with the imperium, or full military authority over a Roman army, acquired a new significance when adopted as a permanent title by Julius Caesar. By his use of it as a constant prefix to his name in the city and in the camp he openly asserted a paramount military authority over the State. Augustus, by resuming it, plainly indicated, in spite of much artful concealment, the real basis on which his power rested viz. the support of the army (Merivale, Rom. Empire, vol. 3). In the New Test. the emperor is commonly designated by the family name Caesar, or the dignified and almost sacred title Augustus (for its meaning, comp. Ovid, Fasti, 1, 609). Tiberius is called by implication in Luk 3:1, a title applied in the New Test. to Cyrenius, Pilate, and others. Notwithstanding the despotic character of the government, the Romans seem to have shrunk from speaking of their ruler under his military title (see Merivale, Rom. Empire, 3, 452, and note) or any other avowedly despotic appellation. The use of the word , dominius, my lord, in Act 25:26, marks the progress of Roman servility between the time of Augustus and Nero. Augustus and Tiberius refused this title. Caligula first bore it (see Alford’s note in loc. cit.; Ovid, Fasti, 2, 142). The term , king, in Joh 19:15; 1Pe 2:17, cannot be closely pressed.

The empire was nominally elective (Tacit. Ann. 13, 4)., but practically it passed by adoption (see Galba’s speech in Tacit. Hist. 1, 15); and till Nero’s time a sort of hereditary right seemed to be recognized. The dangers inherent in a military government were, on the whole, successfully averted till the death of Pertinax, A.D. 193 (Gibbon, 3, 80); but outbreaks of military violence were not wanting in this earlier period (comp. Wenck’s note on Gibbon, loc. cit.). The army was systematically bribed by donatives at the commencement of each reign, and the mob of the capital continually fed and amused at the expense of the provinces. We are reminded of the insolence and avarice of the soldiers in Luk 3:14. The reigns of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian show that an emperor might shed the noblest blood with impunity, so long as he abstained from offending the soldiery and the populace.

IV. Foreign Dependencies. The subjugated countries that lay beyond the limits of Italy were designated by the general name of provinces. The first provisions necessary on the conquest of a country by the Roman arms were made with a view to secure the possession by the victorious general, in virtue of the power and authority (imperium) intrusted to him by the government at home. Accordingly the earliest object of attention was the ordering of the military power, and the procuring of suitable resources for subsisting the troops. These arrangements, however, were made not without a regard to the pacific relations into which the conquerors and the conquered had mutually entered. Acting on the principle that all unnecessary evil was gratuitous folly, the general availed himself of the aid afforded by existing institutions, and only ventured to give displeasure by establishing new ones in cases where the laws and customs of a country were insufficient for his purposes. The civil government was, however, recognized, modified, or remodelled by the conqueror, provisionally, and only until the Roman senate had made its behests known. Ordinarily, however, the general who had conquered the province constituted its government, in virtue of a law or decree of the senate in which the constitution (forma provincioe) was set forth and established, or the provisional appointments already made were sanctioned and confirmed. In order to complete these structural arrangements, the general received special aid from ten senators appointed for the purpose, whose counsel he was obliged to make use of. In thus reforming the legal and social life of a province, the conquerors had the good sense to act, in general, with prudence and mildness, having regard in their appointments to local peculiarities and existing institutions, so far as the intended adjunction to the Roman power permitted, in order to avoid giving the provincials provocation for opposing their new masters.

Under ordinary circumstances the government of the provinces was conducted by authorities sent for the purpose from Rome. Sometimes, however, as we have seen, petty sovereigns were left in possession of a nominal independence on the borders, or within the natural limits, of the province. Such a system was useful for rewarding an ally, for employing a busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a stubborn people to the yoke of dependence. There were differences, too, in the political condition of cities within the provinces. Some were free cities, i.e. were governed by their own magistrates, and were exempted from occupation by a Roman garrison. Such were Tarsus, Antioch in Syria, Athens, Ephesus, Thessalonica. See the notices of the politarchs and demos at Thessalonica (Act 17:5-8); also the town-clerk and the assembly at Ephesus (19:35, 39 [Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul, 1, 357; 2, 79]). Occasionally, but rarely, free cities were exempted from taxation. Other cities were colonies, i.e. communities of Roman citizens transplanted, like garrisons of the imperial city, into a foreign land. Such was Philippi (Act 16:12). Such, too, were Corinth, Troas, the Pisidian Antioch. The inhabitants were, for the most part, Romans (ver. 21), and their magistrates delighted in the Roman title of Praetor (), and in the attendance of lictors (), Act 16:35 (Conybeare and Howson, 1, 315). SEE COLONY.

Augustus divided the provinces into two classes (1) Imperial; (2) Senatorial retaining in his own hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces where the presence of a large military force was necessary, and committing the peaceful and unarmed provinces to the senate. The imperial provinces, at first, were Gaul, Lusitania, Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, Cyprus, and Egypt. The senatorial provinces were Africa, Numidia, Asia, Achaea and Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and Cyrene, Bithynia and Pontus, Sardinia, Baetica (Dion Cass. 53, 12). Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis were subsequently given up by Augustus, who in turn received Dalmatia from the senate. Many other changes were made afterwards. The governors of those provinces which were assigned to the senate were called proconsuls (, deputies; A.V. Act 13:7; Act 18:12; Act 19:38), whatever their previous office may have been (Dion. Cass. 53, 13). The imperial provinces, on the other hand, were governed by a Legatus () or propraetor (), even if the officer appointed had been consul. The minor districts of the imperial provinces were governed by a procurator (, Dion Cass. 53, 15, steward, Mat 20:8). Augustus brought all the procurators under his control (Dion Cass. 53, 32).

Under the republic they had managed the affairs of private citizens, but under the empire they discharged the duties performed by the quaestors in the senatorial provinces. They controlled the revenue and collected the taxes, and their power extended from these matters to justice and administration (Tacit. Hist. 1, 11). The procurators of Judaea seem to have been under the control of the proconsul of Syria, as Quadratus condemned the indiscretion of the procurator Cumanus (Josephus, Ant. 20, 6, 3; Tacit. Ann. 12, 54). They are called governors () in the New Test. The verb is employed in Luk 2:2 to show the nature of the government of Quirinus over Syria. Asia and Achaia were assigned to the senate, and in each case the title of the governor in the Acts is proconsul (, 18:12; 19:38). Dion Cass. (53, 12) informs us that Cyprus was retained by the emperor; but Sergius Panlus is called in the Acts (Act 13:7) proconsul. This is quite correct, as Dion adds that Augustus restored Cyprus to the senate in exchange for another district of the empire. Coins and inscriptions of Cyprus also bear the title proconsul (comp. Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul, 1, 173 sq.; Akerman, Num. Ill. of New Test. p. 41). SEE PROCONSUL.

The government of the senatorial provinces lay between the consuls, for whom, after they had completed their consular office, two provinces were appointed; the other provinces were allotted to the praetors. Suetonius adds (Octav. 47) that Augustus sometimes made changes in this arrangement. Quaestors, chosen by lot out of those who were named for the year, went with the proconsuls into the provinces of the senate. Into the provinces of the emperor, legati, or lieutenants, were sent, with proprsetorial power, to act as representatives of their master: they wore the sword as an index of military authority, and had power of life and death over the soldiers two distinctions which were not granted to the proconsuls, or governors of the senatorial provinces. The imperial lieutenants remained many years in the provinces; until, indeed, it pleased the emperor to recall them. Quaestors were not sent into the imperial provinces, but their place was supplied by procuratores, called at a later period rationales, who were generally taken from the equestrian order. They raised the revenue for the imperial treasury, and discharged the office of paymaster of the army. There was also in the senatorial provinces a procurator, who raised the income intended, not for the treasury, but for the emperor’s privy purse: the smaller provinces, like Judaea, which belonged to Syria, were altogether governed by such. SEE PROCURATOR.

The proconsuls, propraetors, and propraetorial lieutenants, when about to proceed into their several provinces, received instructions for their guidance from the emperor; and in cases in which these were found insufficient, they were to apply for special directions to the imperial head of the State. A specimen of such application may be found in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, with the emperor’s rescript, regarding the conduct which was to be observed towards the already numerous and rapidly growing sect of Christians. The administration of justice, so far as it did not belong to the province itself, was in the governor or lieutenants assembled in a conventus; an appeal lay from this court to the proconsul, and from him to Caesar. Criminal justice was wholly in the hands of the local governor, and extended not only over the provincials, but the Roman citizens as well: in important cases the governors applied for a decision to the emperor. The procurator sometimes had the power of life and death, as in the case of Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Ann. 15, 44). SEE PROVINCE.

The procurator of Judaea resided principally at Caesarea, and the military forces were generally stationed there (Josephus, Ant. 18, 3, 1). During the Passover the troops were stationed at Jerusalem, in order to prevent any insurrection from the multitude of visitors at that festival (Act 21:31; Act 22:24; Act 23:23; Josephus, Ant. 20, 5, 3). The troops consisted of infantry and cavalry (Act 23:23), and were commanded by tribunes (, ver. 17) and centurions (, Mar 15:39; Mar 15:44-45; , Mat 8:5; Mat 27:54; Act 10:1; Act 10:22). The former were at the head of the cohorts (), and the latter at the head of the centuria. of which two made a maniple. SEE ARMY.

It was the duty of the soldiers to execute the sentence of death and to keep guard over the prisoners (Mat 27:27 sq.; Joh 19:23 sq.; comp. Act 22:25), and the garments of those who were executed became their perquisite (Joh 19:23). They also guarded the prisoners (Act 23:23; Act 27:31). In Act 10:1 mention is made of the Italian band at Caesarea. This was probably a cohort serving in Syria composed of natives of Italy, and called to distinguish it from those which consisted of troops raised in Syria (Josephus, Ant. 14, 15, 10; War, 1, 17, 1), as we know from Gruter (Inscr. 334, 1) that Italian cohorts were serving in Syria. The (Act 27:1) could not well be a cohors Augusta, for no legions were in Syria or Judaea bearing that title, nor could it be the band levied from Samaria ( , Josephus, Ant. 19, 9, 2; 20, 6, 1; War, 2, 12, 5). Wieseler suggests that it was the Augustani mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 14, 15) and Suetonius (Nero, 20, 25). The first levying of this band by Augustus is recorded by Dion Cassius (45, 12).

The provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit of Rome and her citizens. In old times the Roman revenues were raised mainly from three sources: 1, the domain lands; 2, a direct tax (tributum) levied upon every citizen; 3, from customs, tolls, harbor duties, etc. The agrarian law of Julius Caesar is said to have extinguished the first source of revenue (Cicero, Ad Att. 2, 16; Dureau de la Malle, 2, 430). Roman citizens had ceased to pay direct taxes since the conquest of Macedonia, B.C. 167 (Cicero, De Off. 2, 22; Plutarch, Emil. Paul. 38), except in extraordinary emergencies. The main part of the Roman revenue was now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax (, , Mat 22:17; Luk 20:22), amounting probably to from five to seven percent on the estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de la Malle, 2, 418). The indirect taxes, too (, vectigalia, Mat 17:25; Dureau de la Malle, 2, 449), appear to have been very heavy (ibid. 2, 448, 452). Augustus, on coming to the empire, found the regular sources of revenue impaired, while his expenses must have been very great. To say nothing of the pay of the army, he is said to have supported no less than 200,000 citizens in idleness by the miserable system of public gratuities. Hence the necessity of a careful valuation of the property of the whole empire, which appears to have been made more than once in his reign. SEE CENSUS. Augustus appears to have raised both the direct and indirect taxes (ibid. 2, 433, 448).

The provinces are said to have been better governed under the empire than under the commonwealth, and those of the emperor better than those of the senate (Tacitus, Ann. 1, 76; 4, 6; Dion, 53, 14). Two important changes were introduced under the empire. The governors received a fixed pay, and the term of their command was prolonged (Josephus, Ant. 18, 6, 5). But the old mode of levying taxes seems to have been continued. The companies who farmed the taxes, consisting generally of knights, paid a certain sum into the Roman treasury, and proceeded to wring what they could from the provincials, often with the connivance and support of the provincial governor. The work was done chiefly by underlings of the lowest class (portitores). These are the publicans (q.v.) of the New Test.

On the whole, it seems doubtful whether the wrongs of the provinces can have been materially alleviated under the imperial government. It is not likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero would be scrupulous about the means used for replenishing their treasury. The stories related even of the reign of Augustus show how slight were the checks on the tyranny of provincial governors. See the story of Licinius in Gaul (Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Romans Biog. s.v.), and that of the Dalmatian chief (Dion, 55). The sufferings of Paul, protected as he was, to a certain extent, by his Roman citizenship, show plainly how little a provincial had to hope from the justice of a Roman governor.

V. Roman Citizenship. Seeing how great the privileges of a Roman citizen were, the eagerness with which it was sought, and the earnestness with which it was pleaded in case of any unjust treatment, is not to be wondered at. The freedom of Rome was often obtained by purchase for great sums (Act 22:28), though at the time of Claudius it is said that it became so cheap that it might be bought for a little broken glass (Dion Cass. 55, 17). A citizen under the republic could in criminal cases, if he were so minded, appeal from the magistrates to the people, for without the acquiescence of the whole Roman people no man could be put to death (Cicero, Tusc. Quoest. 4, 1; In Verr. 54, 57). At the commencement of the imperial period it was, however, necessary that the appeal should be made to the emperor, who had assumed the privilege of final adjudication. It was thus that Paul, when being tried before Festus, appealed unto Caesar (Act 25:11; Act 26:32), fulfilling our Lord’s words that he should bear witness also at Rome (Act 23:11; Act 27:23; Act 28:14; Act 28:16-17; 2Ti 1:17; 2Ti 4:17). The scourging of a Roman citizen was contrary to the law, and Paul, by the assertion of his Roman citizenship, prevented Claudius Lysias from ordering him to be scourged (Act 22:26-29; Act 23:27). At an earlier period Paul and Silas had been scourged (16:37), and two Roman laws thereby violated (Lex Valeria, B.C. 508; Lex Porcia, B.C. 300). They were also illegally treated, being uncondemned (Cicero, Verr. 1, 9; Tacitus, Hist. 1, 6). See Sigonius, De Antiquo Jure Civ. Romans (Paris, 1572); also in Graevii Thesaurus, vol. 1; Spanheim, Orbis Romans (Lond. 1703); Cellarii Dissertatt. p. 715 sq.; Fabricius, Bibliograph. Antiq. p. 724 sq. SEE CITIZENSHIP.

VI. Religious Toleration. The treatment that the Jews received at the hands of the Romans was at times very moderate. Under Julius Caesar they were not forbidden to live according to their customs even in Rome itself (Josephus, Ant. 14, 10, 8), and Augustus ordered that they should have full freedom of worship, hold their assemblies, and make gifts to their Temple; they were even admitted with the citizens to a share in the largesses of corn (Philo, Ad Cai. p. 1015; comp. Horace, Sat. 1, 9, 69); and when it fell upon the Sabbath day, Augustus allowed it to be put off to the next day. They were also exempted from military service on account of their religious prejudices (Josephus, Ant. 14, 10, 11-19; 16, 6; comp. 19, 5, 3). Suetonius (Coes. 84) records that the Jews were in great grief at the death of Augustus. Tiberius and Claudius banished them from Rome, the latter on account of tumults caused by a certain Chrestus (Tacitus, Ann. 2, 85; Suetonius, Tib. 36; comp. Josephus, Ant. 18, 3, 5; Suetonius, Claud. 25; Act 18:2); but the expulsion by Claudius is contradicted by Dion Cassius (55, 6), and a few years after the Jews were again at Rome in great numbers (Act 28:17 sq.). The interference of the Roman government was confined to keeping peace at the great festivals at Jerusalem; for which purpose a guard was stationed in the fortress of Antonia, overlooking the city (Act 22:24). The administration of religious ceremonies was committed to the high priest and Sanhedrim; civil and criminal jurisprudence was retained by them, and they were allowed to pass the sentence of condemnation, but its execution depended upon the procurator (Josephus, Ant. 20, 9, 1; Mar 14:53-55; Mar 14:62-65). They were also permitted to inflict lesser punishments, especially for infractions of the Mosaic law; but the power of life and death was taken from them (Joh 18:31). (See Alford’s note on this passage, and Biscoe On the Acts, p. 134- 167.) The stoning of Stephen probably took place during a tumult, and not with the sanction of the procurator (Act 7:28). Even beyond the borders of Palestine the Jews exercised among themselves the civil jurisdiction according to their laws. Josephus (Ant. 14, 10, 17) gives a Roman decree to the city of Sardis sanctioning this privilege.

The Romans could not remain masters of the country so long without leaving many traces of their occupation: the Latin language became known, the imperial weights and measures as well as modes of reckoning time were adopted, many Latinisms passed into common use (occasionally met with in the New Test.), and judicial proceedings were conducted in that language. Yet Latin literature never exercised the same influence on the Jewish mind which the Greek philosophy did, of which we have the most remarkable example in the Jewish school of Alexandria. Indeed, the Romans carefully abstained from forcing their own language upon the inhabitants of the countries they conquered, though the strictness with which every official act, even to the farthest limits of the empire, was carried out in the Roman language was never relaxed, but the edicts were generally translated into Greek (Josephus, Ant. 14, 10, 2). The better educated Romans undoubtedly spoke Greek. The inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Roman, and Greek (Luk 23:38; Joh 19:20); the Hebrew for the common people, the Latin, the official language, and the Greek, that usually spoken (Alford, ad loc.). All the official inscriptions put up by the Romans were called tituli (comp. Suetonius, In Calig. 34; In Dom. 10); and John (loc. cit.) uses the same expression ( ).

The freedom of religious worship enjoyed by the nations subject to Rome was remarkably great, though foreign religions were not allowed to be introduced among the Romans (Livy 39, 16); and it is recorded by Dion Cassius (52, 36) that Maecenas advised Augustus not to permit such innovations, as they would only tend to destroy the monarchy. This rule was strictly maintained by all his successors. Judaism was an exception, though, as we have seen, the Jews were sometimes expelled from Rome.

VII. The condition of the Roman empire at the time when Christianity appeared has often been dwelt upon, as affording obvious illustrations of Paul’s expression that the fulness of time had come (Gal 4:4). The general peace within the limits of the empire, the formation of military roads, the suppression of piracy, the march of the legions, the voyages of the corn fleets, the general increase of traffic, the spread of the Latin language in the West as Greek had already spread in the East, the external unity of the empire, offered facilities hitherto unknown for the spread of a worldwide religion. The tendency, too, of a despotism like that of the Roman empire to reduce all its subjects to a dead level was a powerful instrument in breaking down the pride of privileged races and national religions, and familiarizing men with the truth that God hath made of one blood all nations on the face of the earth (Act 17:24; Act 17:26). But still more striking than this outward preparation for the diffusion of the Gospel was the appearance of a deep and wide spread corruption which seemed to defy any human remedy. It would be easy to accumulate proofs of the moral and political degradation of the Romans under the empire. It is needless to do more than allude to the corruption, the cruelty, the sensuality, the monstrous and unnatural wickedness of the period as revealed in the heathen historians and satirists. Viewed as a national or political history, says the great historian of Rome, the history of the Roman empire is sad and discouraging in the last degree. We see that things had come to a point at which no earthly power could afford any help; we now have the development of dead powers instead of that of a vital energy (Niebuhr, Lect. 5, 194). Notwithstanding the outward appearance of peace, unity, and reviving prosperity, the general condition of the people must have been one of great misery. To say nothing of the fact that probably one half of the population consisted of slaves, the great inequality of wealth at a time when a whole province could be owned by six landowners, the absence of any middle class, the utter want of any institutions for alleviating distress, such as are found in all Christian countries, the inhuman tone of feeling and practice generally prevailing, forbid us to think favorably of the happiness of the world in the famous Augustan age. We must remember that there were no public hospitals, no institutions for the relief of the infirm and poor, no societies for the improvement of the condition of mankind from motives of charity. Nothing was done to promote the instruction of the lower classes, nothing to mitigate the miseries of domestic slavery. Charity and general philanthropy were so little regarded as duties that it requires a very extensive acquaintance with the literature of the times to find any allusion to them (Arnold, Later Roman Commonwealth, 2, 398). If we add to this that there was probably not a single religion, except the Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightened part of its professors to be real, we may form some notion of the world which Christianity had to reform and purify.

Notwithstanding the attempts of Augustus to stop all tendencies to corruption by punishing immorality, it was chiefly immorality that undermined the empire. With a high civilization, a flourishing commerce, and general outward refinement was associated a terrible depravity of morals. Yet the prosperous state of the empire was confessed by the provinces as well as the Romans. They acknowledged that the true principles of social life, laws, agriculture, and science, which had been first invented by the wisdom of Athens, were now firmly established by the power of Rome, under whose auspicious influence the fiercest barbarians were united by an equal government and common language (Gibbon, ch. 2). The cruelties and exactions of the provincial magistrates were suppressed by Augustus and Tiberius (Tacitus, Ann. 4, 6). Roads were constructed and commerce increased, but all of no avail. Society would not be reformed, and Paul draws a striking picture of the corruption of the age (Rom 1:14-23). But the spirit of Christianity was floating in the atmosphere, and the wisdom of providence was preparing a knowledge which struck root as deeply as the literature of the Augustan age had been scattered superficially (Arnold, loc. cit.).

The Roman empire terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of Justinian II, the last sovereign of the family of Heraclius; and Leo III, or the Isaurian, must be ranked as the first Byzantine monarch (Finlay, Greece under the Romans, p. 433).

The chief prophetic notices of the Roman empire are found in the book of Daniel, especially in Dan 11:30-40, and in Dan 2:40; Dan 7:7; Dan 7:17-19, according to the common interpretation of the fourth kingdom (comp. 2Es 11:1). SEE DANIEL. According to some interpreters the Romans are intended in Deu 28:49-57. For the mystical notices of Rome in the Revelation, comp. SEE ROME.

On the general subject of this article, consult Eschenberg, Classical Manual, Roman Antiquities (Lond. 1844); Ruperti, Handbuch der romisch. Alterthumer (Hanover, 1841, 2 vols. 8vo); Maillott and Martin, Recherches sur les Costumes, les Maurs, etc., des Anciens Peuples. See also Unger, Sitten und Gebrauche der Romer (Vienna, 1805); Arnold, Hist. of Rome. Much information may be found by the English reader on the state of manners in the first centuries after Christ in the following fictions: Lockhart, Valerius; Bulwer, Pompeii; Ware, Palmyra; and in Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity. But especially consult Merivale, Hist. of the Roman Empire (Lond. 1864, 8vo).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Roman Empire

Pompey’s lieutenant, M. Aemilius Scaurus, 64 B.C., interfered in the contest between Aristobulus and Aretas king of Arabia Petraea, who supported Hyrcanus, whom Aristobulus had driven from the high priesthood. Next year Pompey himself took Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 14:2-4; B. J. 1:6, section 7). Thenceforward Judaea was under Rome. Hyrcanus was titular sovereign and high priest, subject to his minister Antipater, the partisan of Rome. Antipater’s son, Herod the Great, was made king by Antony, 40 B.C., and confirmed by Augustus 30 B.C. (Josephus, Ant. 14:14; 15:6). Roman soldiers were quartered at Jerusalem in Herod’s time to maintain his authority (Ant. 15:3, section 7). Rome exacted tribute and an oath of allegiance to the emperor as well as to Herod (Ant. 17:2, section 2). On Archelaus’ banishment, A.D. 6, Judaea became an appendage of Syria, governed by a Roman procurator residing at Caesarea. Galilee was still under the Herod’s and other princes whose dominions and titles successive emperors changed from time to time.

In the New Testament we find such notices of Roman dominion as the Jews recognizing Caesar as sole king (Joh 19:15); Cyrenius “governor of Syria” (Luk 2:2); Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, “governors,” i.e. procurators of Judaea; the “tetrarchs” Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luk 3:1); “king Agrippa” (Act 25:13); Roman soldiers, legions, centurions, publicans; “tribute money” (Mat 22:19); the “taxing of the whole world” (Luk 2:1); Italian and Augustan cohorts (Act 10:1; Act 27:1); an “appeal to Caesar” (Act 25:11). Three Roman emperors are named; Augustus, Tiberius (Luk 2:1; Luk 3:1), and Claudius (Act 11:28; Act 18:2). Nero is alluded to as “Augustus” and “Caesar” (Act 25:10-11-21-25-26; Phi 4:22), and “my lord” (compare also 1Pe 2:17; Rom 13:1). For notices of Rome’s administration and magistrates in the provinces, see Rom 13:7; Rom 18:12; Rom 16:12-35; Rom 16:38; Rom 19:38.

In theory at first Augustus was neither king nor dictator, but simply first citizen, “prince,” or chief member of the senate (Tacitus, Ann. 1:9). The various prerogatives of the old magistracies, which nominally were retained, were conferred on Augustus. Others bore the chief official titles, while he really controlled every department. As “emperor” (imperator) he had full military authority over the army; Julius Caesar changed this title (commander in chief) into a permanent one, implying paramount military authority over the state. The real basis of the emperor’s power thus was the support of the army. “Caesar” was the family name, “Augustus” the sacred name of majesty. The Romans shrank at first from designating him by a despotic title; but servility increased as the empire progressed. “My lord” (ho kurios, “dominus,” in Act 25:26) marks the downward tendency in Nero’s time as contrasted with Augustus’, for the latter and Nero refused the title. Caligula first took it. The empire, though nominally elective (Tacitus, Ann. 13:4), became hereditary or passed by adoption (Tacitus, History i. 15).

Each emperor in beginning his reign bribed the army by donatives, and fed and amused the mob in Rome at the cost of the provinces. So long as the army and mob were not touched, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian could shed the noblest blood with impunity. John the Baptist implies that the soldiers’ characteristic sins were violence, false accusation, and discontented greed (Luk 3:14). The full danger of military government became apparent first at the death of Pertinax, A.D. 193. The bounds of the Roman empire were the Atlantic on the W.; the Euphrates on the E.; the African deserts, the Nile cataracts, and the Arabian deserts on the S.; the British Channel, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Black Sea on the N. Claudius added Britain, and Trajan Dacia, to the empire. Germany on the N. and Parthia on the E. were the only independent powers. Gibbon guesses the population of the empire in the time of the emperor Claudius at 120 million. An army of 25 legions, and the Praetorian guards (10,000) and cohorts in the capital, in all about 170,000 men, controlled this population.

The auxiliaries were about as many more (Tacitus, Ann. 4:5). In the New Testament the political condition of the provincial cities varies. The free cities were governed by their own magistrates, and were exempt from Roman garrisoning; as Tarsus, Antioch in Syria, Athens, Ephesus, Thessalonica. Politarchs (“rulers of the city”) and the demos (“people”) are mentioned at Thessalonica (Act 17:5-8); the “town clerk” (grammateus) and “assembly” at Ephesus (Act 19:35-39); “colonies” also, as Philippi, i.e. communities of Roman citizens, as it were a miniature Rome transplanted into another land (Act 16:12-21; Act 16:35). So Corinth, Troas, and the Pisidian Antioch. The magistrates bore the Roman designation “praetors” (Greek strategoi), and were attended by “lictors” (Greek rabdouchoi, “serjeants”.) (On the PROVINCES, see PROCURATOR, PROCONSUL.)

Roman revenue was mainly drawn from the provinces by a “direct tax” (kensos, footos; Mat 22:17; Luk 20:22), from five to seven per cent on the produce of the soil. “Indirect taxes” (tete; vectigalia) also were heavy. By public gratuities to thousands of idle citizens, and pay to the army, Augustus found the revenue so impaired that he was under the necessity of making the valuation of the property of the empire alluded to in Luk 2:1. (See CENSUS; CYRENIUS; PUBLICANS (portitores), underlings of the Roman knights.) The state of the Roman empire shows that “the fullness of the time was come” (Gal 4:4) when Jesus came. The universal peace within the empire, so that Janus’ temple was shut; the military roads constructed; piracy put clown; commerce uniting the various lands; Latin spread in the West as Greek in the East: these causes all combined in God’s providential arrangements to prepare for a world-wide religion.

Privileged races and national religions were now blended in one rarity under one imperial ruler; so that men were the more ready to admit the truth that “God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Act 17:24; Act 17:26). Under all the outward appearance of unity, peace, and prosperity, moral death and stagnant corruption prevailed on all sides. There were no hospitals for the sick, no establishments for the relief of the poor, no societies for ameliorating men’s condition, no instruction for the lower classes, no antidote to the curse of slavery. Charity and philanthropy were scarcely recognized as duties. Philosophers regarded all religions as equally false, the people all as equally true, magistrates all as equally useful for restraining anarchy.

Christianity came as the life-giving healer to this mass of death; “gradually withdrawing some of all orders, even slaves, out of the vices, ignorance, and misery of that corrupted social system. It was ever instilling humanity, coldly commended by an impotent philosophy, among men and women whose infant ears had been habituated to the shrieks of dying gladiators; it was giving dignity to minds prostrated by years of despotism; it was nurturing purity and modesty, and enshrining the marriage bed in a sanctity long almost lost, and rekindling the domestic affections; substituting a calm and rational faith for worn out superstitions, gently establishing in the soul the sense of immortality.” (Milman, Latin Christianity, 1:24, quoted in Smith’s Bible Dictionary) Daniel 2; 7 refer to Rome as the fourth kingdom; compare also Deu 28:49-57; Mat 24:15; Mat 24:28.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

Roman Empire

This is more often spoken of in scripture than is generally recognised. In the vision of the great image by Nebuchadnezzar, four great empires are prophesied of, each being inferior to its predecessor. The fourth is the Roman empire, which in its last phase is compared to iron and clay, materials which would not unite: the kingdom would be divided in itself. In the visions of Daniel the same four kingdoms are further portrayed, and whereas the first three are compared to known animals, the Roman is compared to some dreadful monster that cannot be named: cf. Dan 7:7.

The history of the Roman empire fully answers to the prophecy. There were many changes before the line of emperors, but there was always the democratic element in the ruling power. When there were emperors they depended upon popular choice – mostly upon the soldiers, and the senate endorsed the choice of the army. The emperor exercised imperial power, but had to please the troops. There were the two elements at work, the iron and clay, which would not unite. Of the first twelve emperors, seven were either put to death, or committed suicide to escape a more violent end.

There is no empire mentioned in scripture as succeeding Rome, and the iron and clay elements, as the relics of Rome, are at work more or less in all civilised countries. The same empire is described in the Revelation as a beast that was , and is not , and yet it shall be present, or come. It is further described as “there are seven kings,” or forms of government (Kings, B.C. 753; Consuls, 509; Dictators, 498; Decemvirs, 451; and Consular Tribunes, 444): “five are fallen, and one is ” (Imperial, B.C. 31; it existed when John wrote): “and the other is not yet come.” Rev 17:10. From this we learn that the Roman empire will be reconstructed: it will be a union of ten kings (ten horns), and will be of the seven numerically, but will be the eighth as being of a new order.

The empire will make a covenant with the Jews for a week (seven years), but will break it in the middle of the week. Dan 9:27. It will be in close association with another great power, symbolised by a beast (the Antichrist), coming up out of the earth, and both will be energised by Satan. Rev 13:1-18; Rev 17:8-18. The empire will be used by God to destroy Babylon (Papal Rome), and will then be itself destroyed.

Palestine became subject to Rome in B.C. 63. It was an officer of the Roman empire that delivered the Lord to be crucified, and it was the Romans who were used by God to punish His people and destroy their city. They alas, in their pride have been displaying this before the world ever since in the Arch of Titus at Rome.

The Roman Emperors who reigned during New Testament times; the Procurators whom the Emperors appointed over Palestine; and the branches of Herod’s family who succeeded him, are given in the following table:-

B.C.EmperorsJudeaGalileeOther Parts

4Augustus reigningDeath of Herod. ArchelausHerod Antipas Tertrarch ofHerod Philip Tetrarch of

(son of Herod) Ethnarch ofPerea and GalileeBatanea, Trachonitis, Iturea, etc.

Judea, Samaria and Idumaea

A.D.

6Archelaus banished. Judea

ruled by Procurators viz

7Coponius

9M. Ambivius

12Tiberius associatedAnnius rufus

with Augustus

14Tiberius alone

15Valerius Gratus

26Pontius Pilate

36Pilate deposed

37CaligulaHerod Agrippa I, succeeds Philip

38Marcellus

39Antipas deposed.

41ClaudiusHerod Agrippa I(King) receives Judea and Samaria with Abilene.Herod (brother of Agrippa)

King of Chalcis

44James beheaded. Death of Agrippa. Judea and Galilee

ruled by Procurators; Cuapius Fadus.

46Tiberius Alexander

48CumanusDeath of Herod

49Agrippa II (son of A.I.)

King of Chalis

51Antonius Felix

53Agrippa II. receives Philip’s

Tetrarchy in exchange for Chalcis

54Nero

60Porcius Festus

61Albinus

64Gessius Fiorus

68Galba

69Otho. Vitellius Vespasian

70Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Roman Empire

Ruled by:

– Augustus Caesar

Luk 2:1

– Tiberius Caesar

Luk 3:1

– Claudius Caesar

Act 18:2

– Nero

Phi 4:22

Citizenship in:

– By nativity

Act 22:28

– By purchase

Act 22:28

Rights of citizens:

– General references

Act 16:37; Act 22:25-29

– Of trial

Act 25:16

– Of appeal

Act 25:10; Act 25:21

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Roman Empire

Roman Empire. The empire of Rome succeeded the Macedonian empire founded by Philip and Alexander. It controlled the greater part of the then known world. The references to the Roman dominion in the Bible chiefly allude to the empire in its earlier history, including the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. The extent and power of the empire during this period were greater than at any earlier and possibly than at any later time. It reached to the Atlantic on the west, the Euphrates on the east, the African desert, the Nile cataracts, and the Arabian deserts on the south, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Black Sea on the north. It also conquered Great Britain. Augustus divided the provinces into two classes1. Imperial. 2. Senatorial. These divisions are recognized in the New Testament. The ruler of a senatorial province is “proconsul,” and of an imperial province a “governor.” Thus Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Luk 2:2. Pilate, Felix, and Festus are spoken of as “governors,” that is, procurators, of Juda. Mat 27:2; Act 23:24; Act 24:27.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible