RABBIS AND PATRIARCHS ON THE MARGINS 107
But the two new provinces in which the effects of direct Roman rule can
be traced more comprehensively—Judaea and Arabia—tell a slightly different
story, of a more energetic imperialism. Admittedly, these provinces were un-
usual in other ways, too. Provincia Arabia had been the Nabataean kingdom,
situated at the very fringes of the Hellenistic world, never fully part of it.^6 Its
people, or some part of them, had come to have a distinctive identity. Their
rulers were designated not simply as “kings” (no subjects required—like the
Seleucids and their Herodian and Syrian epigones) nor as kings of a particular
land, like the Ptolemies of Egypt. They weremalkei Nabatu—kings of (the
“nation” of) the Nabataeans—andrahmei amhon—lovers of their people. The
Babatha archives, whose papyrus documents span roughly thirty-five years,
twenty-five of them under the new regime (after 106), show how quickly and
dramatically some things (e.g., legal and administrative rhetoric) changed
with the arrival of the Romans.^7
We are incomparably better informed about the new province of Judaea
(renamed Syria Palaestina after the Bar Kokhba revolt), which included not
just the old district of Judaea but all the inland districts and coastal cities of
Palestine. Here the changes resulted from (1) the imperial policy of integ-
rating the empire’s eastern fringe and (2) the failure of the two Jewish revolts.
The revolts account for the fact that from the early second century until the
middle of the third, this very small province hosted two Roman legions.^8 The
effects of their presence were complex. No doubt many loathed the arrogance
and violence of the soldiers and resented the obligation to provide them with
food and lodging on short notice: these at least are common complaints in
rabbinic literature, and there is no reason to disbelieve them.^9 However, the
(^6) For a general account, see Bowersock,Roman Arabia; Millar,Roman Near East, pp.
387–436.
(^7) For some suggestive observations, see, in addition to hisRoman Arabia, pp. 76–89, Bow-
ersock, “Greek Culture at Petra and Bostra in the Third Century AD,” inHo Hellenismos sten
Anatole: Praktika a’ Diethnous Arkhaiologikou Synedriou Delphoi 6–9 Noembriou 1986(Athens:
Evropaiko Politistiko Kentro Delphon, 1991), 15–22 (I thank Kostas Buraselis for bringing this
to my attention); there is, however, a puzzling simplicity to Bowersock’s insistence on viewing
the adoption of Greco-Roman political institutions, iconography, etc., as aspects of “Arab self-
expression,” a formulation that needs to be rethought, though not necessarily wholly rejected, in
the light of Millar’s conclusions inRoman Near East. And see now the important discussion of
H. Cotton, “The Languages of the Documents from the Judaean Desert,”ZPE125 (1999): 219–
31, who notes the near disappearance of Nabataean from documents after 106 (there are two
exceptions); oddly, the four Jewish Aramaic documents postdate 106, but all except for Babatha’s
ketubbahare in effect Roman documents (including a tax receipt!) written in a different language
(I would add that these documents may be important evidence for the multilingualism of scribes
in Mahoza).
(^8) For detailed discussion, see B. Isaac and I. Roll, “Judaea in the Early Years of Hadrian’s
Reign,”Latomus38 (1979): 54–66; Isaac,Limits of Empire, pp. 106–7.
(^9) See S. Lieberman, “Jewis hLife in Eretz Yisrael as Reflected in t he Palestinian Talmud,” in
Texts and Studies(New York: Ktav, 1974), pp. 180–89, for discussion of some relevant texts.