Replies

A newly published Greek papyrus reveals Roman legal proceedings in Iudaea, exposing tax fraud and trial strategies amid political unrest before the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Credit: Israel Antiquities Authority

Call I-MDCCC-DLV-MCCXII, operators are standing by to take your call!..............

The evidence looks fragmentary...

OMG!!! Democracy and modern Republics have still not evaporated the evil humans do. /sarc

I think that I can see the hole in the argument.

10% for the Big Guy has always been a thing.

It is always interesting to see how humans basically stay the same.

A rediscovered Greek papyrus details a Roman court case in Iudaea involving tax fraud, forgery, and possible rebellion on the eve of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Wow, proof that "document shredding" goes way back.

Here is the English translation:

VIII. Translation 1–16 [...] 17–19 [...] it is discovered ― since the people who contrived it were Gerasenes ―that the location of the Gerasenes was substituted and over it was written the location of Gadora because it was deemed well-suited for the fraud. 20–23 Gadalias is a man who may be cheaply bought, and let not the title of “son of a chreophylax”sway the judge. That we are telling the truth is evident, since he failed to respond to summons at four assizes of Rufus and, having been entered into the list of xenokritai who were due to be fined, was pardoned on the grounds that he was without means. 24–27 As regards his committing violence and sedition and banditry, and the money that he counterfeited, and how he escaped from prison, and how during the visit of the Emperor he extorted money from many people, among them Lectus the centurion, and how he was many times convicted and banished ― if we report on this, we will give the impression that we believe we are helpless against his great power. 28–30 All in all, after the forgery was discovered at the court of Postumus, fearing punishment they took refuge with the boule, each of them giving 125 denarii as an entry-fee (or: as revenue). For they believe that they will be relieved from punishment in the name of the boule. 31–38 If it is said on behalf of Gadalias that it had been drawn up under his father and that he produced witnesses, you will argue, first of all, that no one should be made liable for the forged document at hand other than the person presenting it; furthermore, that it was sealed under him and not under his father [...] of the centurion [...] and to deny at the court of Postumus that he/they had it, and afterwards [...] of the Gerasenes, having received from them the [...] deed/copy and that which he should have presented. For if it had been [...] in good faith [...] manner, that is the [...] buyer(?) [...] 39–44 If Saulos claims that [the blame lies(?)] with Gadalias as the one presenting [the document(?)], you will say that the instigator of the fraud [...] Saulos [...] from 96Anna Dolganov — Fritz Mitthof — Hannah M. Cotton — Avner Ecker the buyer(?) [...] copy of his deed [...] not issuing from him. For it is not evident that he [...] 45–49 That Saulos became a friend and collaborator and accomplice in every [criminal deed linked with Gadalias(?)] you will establish from the fact that Saulos too produced counterfeited coins and that they were [denounced(?)] by certain persons on account of this, one at the court of the governor of Iudaea and the other at the court of the governor of Arabia. 50–53 And since, by virtue of his being without means [...] toward circumvention of the fiscus, having remitted what he owed him by way of a loan he used Chaereas, who bought the slaves in his own name, including Niko- [who] was never in the service of Chaereas but rather in that of Saulos. 54–59 In addition, (you will say) that Saulos and his father, wishing to manumit Onesimos the aforementioned slave and not fearing the fiscus,as we have already recounted,had the slave registered under the name of Chaereas with malicious intent. Without any money being paid, he was ultimately manumitted in the name of Chaereas, and he officially goes by that name, even though he was never his slave nor was ever in his service. 60–69 If someone says on behalf of Diocles and Chaereas that they committed no wrong, since they received a copy from the seller, then you will say that the fraud originated with them and is supported by the hatred of Saulos. The greatest proof of this is that they were discovered as they were coming from the place of Gadalias [...] the stealthy substitution [...] with the forged copy [...] complicity [...] Saulos [...] denounced the matter of Onesimos having been manumitted in the name [of Chaereas]. 70–72 Because, if they were not involved in the wickedness, what compelling reason did they have to appear in Gadora if they possessed the copy from Saulos?