Sodalitas Graeciae (Nova Roma)/Religion from the Papyri/Temple Taxation

Contents 1 Temple Decline and Roman Administration 1.1 Criticism of the Traditional View 2 Sources of Data 3 Taxes Pertaining to Temples 3.1 δεκάτη μόσχων 3.2 εἰσκριτικόν 3.3 ἐπιστατικόν 3.3.1 Frequency of Payments 3.3.2 The Size of the ἐπιστατικόν 3.3.3 The ἐπιστατικόν Data 3.4 Calculating Tax Trends 4 Credit 5 Notes

Temple Decline and Roman Administration

Traditional analysis of temple economic decline has largely focused on the burdensome and punitive influence of Roman administration in contrast to Ptolemaic,^[1]

the twin horns of which are perceived as being temple land confiscation under Augustus and increased taxation. According to this model, the beginning of the end starts under Augustus when, in circa 19-20 BCE, under the administration of the prefect Petronius, hieratic lands are confiscated and temples are given either on of two options: to rent back the same land or to accept a subsidy (συντάξις).[2]

Those who chose to rent back their land assumed the increased burden of the rent,[3]

while those who accepted a συντάξις became increasingly dependant upon the whims of Roman administration—at Soknebtunis all evidence of συντάξις payments ends in 233-4 CE,[4]

which likely reflected a general trend, especially since complaints of failed συντάξις payments are also known from much earlier.[5]

While priests were likely exempt from the poll-tax early on,[6]

the privilege eventually erodes. Additional temple revenues are diverted to the state, such as the ὑπὲρ σφραγισμοῦ, which traditional was a fee taken by the priests for the “sealing” of sacrificial animals, but from the time of Hadrian this fee was instead collected by the μοσχοσφραγισταί for the government.[7]

All of this combined with the loss of other traditional rights, such the power of asylum,[8]

reduced the influence and income of the temples throughout the Roman period, eventually eroding them into non-existence.

Criticism of the Traditional View

The above perspective has more recently been the object of some criticism. Capponi argues that Augustus essentially preserved Ptolemaic era taxes on temples and clergy, and despite the supposed land confiscation, the tax on hieratic land continued at the same rate from Ptolematic times at one–two artabai per aroura.^[9]

More radically, Glare disputes the reality of a general confiscation of hieratic land.[10]

 Yet, the question remains to what extent Roman taxation may have had a destructive impact on Egyptian temples. While emphasizing the lack of deliberate Roman targeting of temples, Glare seems to remain open to the possibility that the net impact may have nonetheless been harmful.[11]

Sources of Data

The classic surveys by Otto, Wilcken, Johnson and Wallace provide an invaluable source of data,^[12]

but none endeavor a systematic and quantitative analysis of taxation trends throughout the first three centuries, let alone the impact of inflation on money taxes. The latter is a particularly egregious oversight since the bulk of the tax burden on temples was paid in money and not in-kind, subjecting it to potential monetary inflation. Indeed, when one computes the tax burden against constant drachmae, one discovers that the tax burden on Egyptian temples did not increase over the first three centuries. This compels one to look for other factors in conjunction with taxation to account for the overall decline.

Taxes Pertaining to Temples

Several taxes had the temples as their exclusive scope. The most significant of these was the ἐπιστατικόν, levied every one or two years. In SPP. XXII 183 (138 CE), one finds that out of the total expenses for the temple of Soknopaiou Nesos (10,632 dr. 4½ obols) this tax accounted for 5,500 dr., more than half of the total expenses. In contrast, the other amounted to significantly less. The δεκάτη μόσχων was levied regularly as a flat tax of 20 dr. for each calf offered for sacrifice at the temple of Soknebtunis, whose Ptolemaic predecessor by the same name is attested in P. Hib. 115.^[13]

The related tax, τέλος μόσχου θυομένου, was paid by the worshipper and not the temple. The εἰσκριτικόν was a tax known to every priest as a class of initiation fee., whose amount varied from 8 dr. to 2,200 dr., depending on the office being purchased/initiated into. Despite the potentially high amount, it was a one-time fee and so would not constitute a long-term burden on temples.

δεκάτη μόσχων

All instances of this tax specify a payment of 20 dr. (P. Teb. 307, 197 CE, 205 CE, 208 CE, 210 CE), except for P. Teb. II 572 which specifies 84 dr. Evans is right in his skepticism of the view that this tax should be considered a 10% ad valorem tax (that is, a tax based on the value of a good; examples that fall under this category are sales taxes and VAT taxes) on the proceeds from sacrifices, since it is quite remarkable that 10% of such proceeds should always be 20 dr.^[14]

As for the anomalous value of 84 dr., he speculates that this was a payment of four instances of 20 dr. with a 1 dr. extra charges, citing the reference to “for a period of two years,” which suggests that 20 dr. was the flat tax for 6-month periods.</ref>Evans, "Social and Economic History," 254 no. 38.</ref>  

εἰσκριτικόν

The fragmentary nature of the evidence for the εἰσκριτικόν presents several problems. Firstly, it is evident that there were two broad subclasses for this tax subsumed under the same term, 1) those which were initiation payments into the priestly order in general and 2) those into specific offices of the priesthood in the given temple.^[15]

The former is to be identified with the ἱερατεία as the fee for initiation into the priestly order. At Soknopaiou Nesos payments of 12 dr. (BGU I 162) and 20 dr. (P. Lond. II 329; SP XXII 171, 143) are recorded. Wallace speculates that the former was the initial fee for entry into the priestly order while the latter were payments for initiation into specific offices at the temples of Hermes and Soknopaios.[16]

At Tebtunis the fee for initiation into the priestly order was 52 dr., and 50 dr. for advancement into the specific office feather-bearer (P. Teb. 298).[17]

The same papyrus records the fee for the office of Stolistae as 100 dr. Other payments for entry into specific offices are recorded in WO II 136-7, at a rate of 8 dr., paid by pastaphori at Elephantine; similarly P. Oxy. XII 1435 also records a payment of 8 dr. P. Teb. 294 records the εἰσκριτικόν for the advancement into the office of prophet as 200 dr., an office particularly profitable since it qualified the holder to 1/5th[18]

of the temple revenue.  This likely accounts for the extreme offer of 2,200 dr. in P. Teb. 294 for outright purchase of the office, provided that the post become hereditary.

Secondly, as is clear from the above data, because the initiation fee into the order as well as the fee for entrance into specific offices varies from place to place and the evidence for each of these is few and far between, there is little diachronic data for the εἰσκριτικόν in the same location for the same purpose. As a result one can say very little about its fluctuations (or the lack thereof) over time and cannot provide basis for discussing the evolving tax burden on the temples.

ἐπιστατικόν

The nature of the ἐπιστατικόν is still unclear, but it was most likely closely related to the office of ἐπιστάτης which, while usually distinct from the high priest, was at times combined into one office.^[19]

The role of the ἐπιστάτης is uncertain, but it may have been the chief financial officer of the temple.[20]

The prevailing view has been that the tax was levied against the temple to pay for the salary of the related office.[21]

On the other hand, Otto viewed the tax as payment for the privilege of the temple electing its own ἐπιστάτης, while Rostovtzeff considered the tax to be an entrance fee for the office.[22]

The prevailing view seems to offer the simplest explanation, but whatever the relationship between the office and the tax may have been in the Ptolemaic period, only the tax remained in the Roman period, inspiring Wallace to state, “The ἐπιστατικόν is the best example of a specific tax designed to curb the power of the priests by reducing their wealth.”[23]

More recent work has taken a less bleak view of the intention behind and impact of  the tax.[24]

Frequency of Payments

Some questions surround the frequency of payment for the ἐπιστατικόν. Glare suggests that biennial collections at Soknopaiou Nesos suggest the tax may have been exacted with the same frequency.^[25]

However, Johnson’s argument for annual payments on an 11-month schedule seems to offer the most satisfying option, at least for lump sum payments, namely that the 500 dr. payment in P. Lond II 352 is a monthly payment for 11 months, totaling in 5,500 dr., given that the latter is the lump sum installment paid by the same temple in SPP XXII 183 and P. Lond II 347.[26]

The same inference can be made for SB VI 9066.  While it may well have been different for temples where individual payments were exacted, the close correspondence between these annual payments and the total temple estimates based on the individual payments suggests that they too were on an annual basis.

In one second century document from Bacchias (P. Lund IV 7) temple dues total 1826 dr. 3 ob. At Soknopaiou Nesos dues remained stable at 5,500 dr. (P. Lond II 347, 201 CE; P. Lond II 352, 220 CE; SB VI 9066, 138-161 CE). In 162-3 CE dues totaling 1835 dr. are paid at Tebtunis (P. Teb II 306), and earlier that century a similar amount of 1500 dr. can be estimated (P. Teb II 298). At Karanis individual payments are recorded for the years 171-175 CE (P. Mich. IV) ranging from 27 dr. 3 ob. to 87 dr. 3 ob. for the priests of Petesouchos, Isis Patsonteus and Harpocrates. In addition, several ostraca dating from the first century BCE to the first century CE (O. Mich. II.739/743; III 984/5) record rates of 14-25 dr.

The Size of the ἐπιστατικόν

The size of the ἐπιστατικόν seems to have been roughly correlated with the number of priests in the temple. Bacchias was host to 22-23 (P. Yale 363) priests at the temple of Soknokonnis in 116 CE,^[27]

which decrease to twelve priests by 171 CE (P. Yale 902 + 906),[28]

at which time Soknobraisis has fourteen (P. Yale 902 + 906).[29]

Despite minor fluctuations in the number at Soknobraisis in the later part of the second century, one can estimate the total number of priests at Bacchias in the second century as ranging between 26 and 39,[30]

taxed at 1826 dr. 3 ob. The temple of Soknebtunis at Tebtunis employed a minimum of fifty priests in 162-3 CE, and likely several more (P. Teb. 306),[31]

which required  a payment of 1500 dr. and 1825 dr. 5½ ob. in 107-8 CE and 162-3 CE, respectively. In contrast to these modest numbers, Soknopaiou Nesos was able to boast 100 priests in 178/9 CE (P. Vondob. G. 24951 + 24556) and 160 later in the second century (PSI VIII 927), which demanded a payment of 5,500 dr.[32]

Thus, in these lump sum payments, one can observe the rather loose correlation between temple size and  ἐπιστατικόν amount. Although, while Soknopaiou Nesos had the largest temple and so required the largest payment according to above data, the total nonetheless remained the same in the second century despite significant fluctuations in the number of priests. This does raise the possibility that the loose correlation between temple size and ἐπιστατικόν is a mirage of the fragmentary data. Similarly, As a result, the data will be summarized in two separate groups, that in which the ἐπιστατικόν was paid individually and that in which it was paid as a lump sum.

The ἐπιστατικόν Data

The two tables below summarize the above data, which being fragmentary as it is, is divided into 25-year intervals:

Lump Sum Payments
	101-125	126-150	151-175	176-200	201-225
Bacchias
P. Lund IV 7	1826 dr. 3 ob.
Soknopaiou Nesos
SB VI 9066		5500 dr.
SPP XXII 183		5500 dr.
P. Lond II 352					5500 dr.
P. Lond II 347					5500 dr.
W. Chr. 92		5500 dr.
Tebtunis
P. Teb II 306		1835 dr. 3½ ob.
P. Teb II 298	1500 dr.

Individual Payments
	1-25	25-50	51-75	76-100	101-125	126-50	151-175
Karanis
P. Mich. IV							87 dr. 3 ob 87 dr. 3 ob 27 dr. 3 ob 27 dr. 3 ob 27 dr. 3 ob 27 dr. 3 ob
SO. Mich II 739	14 dr.
SO. Mich II 743	17 dr.
SO. Mich II 984	25 dr.
SO. Mich II 985	19 dr.

Calculating Tax Trends

A two degree polynomial regression analysis is performed for each dataset to find the best fitting curve. The first task is to weight individual ἐπιστατικόν payments against lump sum payments. The difficulty arises from attempting to estimate the total number of priests at Karanis in the first and second centuries. If one considers the priestly population of Soknopaiou Nesos as unusual (60%-72% in the second century^[33] ), the temples at Bacchias and Tebtunis should offer more reasonable parallels; 26-50 priests seems to be the given range. Since precision in such affairs is often more than elusive, an estimate of 40 priests for Karanis will be utilized. When applied to the O. Mich II/III tax rates, one arrives at an estimate of 750 dr. For the P. Mich. IV rates one arrives at an estimate of 1580 dr. which is quite consistent with second century lump-sum payments from Tebtunis. From among the lump-sum data, P. Lund IV 7 requires exclusion due to its imprecise date, which is rather unfortunate since it is the only attested ἐπιστατικόν value for Bacchias.

It is evident that for numerous periods evidence is missing for tax payments from particular temples. In such cases, averages are taken from the previous and next available 25-year intervals. If both are not available, then the nearest price is used. While such estimates are not ideal the fragmentary evidence necessitates it.

Since the biannual δεκάτη μόσχων flat tax was exacted at a rate of 20 dr. per year, and under the assumption that the ἐπιστατικόν was annual, the rate of δεκάτη μόσχων would be 40 dr. per every payment of the ἐπιστατικόν. The graph below represents the composite taxation rate of δεκάτη μόσχων and ἐπιστατικόν, reflecting a 14.8% increase over the course of two and a quarter centuries.

Credit

The core of this article is a reformatting of elements from a graduate seminar on Roman Administration submitted by M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus in the Spring of MMDCCLXI at the University of Chicago.

Notes

1. ↑ Sherman LeRoy Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (New York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1969), 246-49.
2. ↑ Allan Chester Johnson, Roman Egypt: To the Reign of Diocletian (ed. Tenney Frank; An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome; 5 vols.; vol. 2; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1936), 639.
3. ↑ J. Grafton Milne, "The Ruin of Egypt by Roman Mismanagement," 17 (1927): 4.
4. ↑ J. A. S. Evans, "A Social and Economic History of an Egyptian Temple in the Greco-Roman Period," YCS 17 (1961): 213-4.
5. ↑ BGU IV 1197, 1200, II 707; Hawara Archiv 5 p. 387, no. 188; P. Lond. II 359; P. Teb. II 298, 302; SP XXII 184; P. Oxy. VII 1046.
6. ↑ Elizabeth H. Gilliam, "The Archives of the Temple of Soknobraisis at Bacchias," YCS 10 (1947): 204-5; Evans, "Social and Economic History," 249.
7. ↑ Evans, "Social and Economic History," 255-6. From the reign of Trajan additional taxes were levied from the temple of Soknebtunis (273) which further increased its financial burden.
8. ↑ William Linn Westermann, "The Ptolemies and the Welfare of Their Subjects," AHR 43, no. 2 (1938): 276-8.
9. ↑ Livia Capponi, Augustan Egypt, The Creation of a Roman Province (Studies in Classics; New York: Routledge, 2005), 152-3. For a more general discussion of Augustus as essentially conservative in fiscal reforms and innovations in Egypt, see Dominic Rathbone, "Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation," CCG 4 (1993): 81-112.
10. ↑ Glare, "Temples of Egypt," 60-85.
11. ↑ Glare, "Temples of Egypt," 61-62.
12. ↑ Walter Otto, Priester und Tempel im Hellenistischen Ägypten (2vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1905-9); Ulrich Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (2vols.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1922); Johnson, Roman Egypt; Wallace, Taxation in Egypt .
13. ↑ Evans, "Social and Economic History," 254 is rather skeptical of the connection with the Ptolemaic impost and considers the Roman-era tax to be a Roman innovation.
14. ↑ Evans, "Social and Economic History," 253.
15. ↑ For summary discussion, see Gilliam, "Temple of Soknobraisis," 203-04; Carroll A. Nelson, Status Declarations in Roman Egypt (ASP 19; Amsterdam: 1979), 60-62.
16. ↑ Wallace, Taxation in Egypt, 250.
17. ↑ Evans, "Social and Economic History," 259.
18. ↑ Wallace, Taxation in Egypt, 251.
19. ↑ Evans, "Social and Economic History," 201.
20. ↑ Wallace, Taxation in Egypt, 252.
21. ↑ Ulrich Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (2vols.; vol. 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1922), 366 (Evans 273); Johnson, Roman Egypt, 562; Wallace, Taxation in Egypt, 252.
22. ↑ Otto, Priester und Tempel, 239—which carried more weight in conjunction with Otto’s claim that the ἐπιστάτης and high priest were one and the same, a position demonstrated false by Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit, 44
23. ↑ Wallace, Taxation in Egypt, 253.
24. ↑ Glare, "Temples of Egypt," 68-70.
25. ↑ Glare, "Temples of Egypt," 70.
26. ↑ Johnson, Roman Egypt, 654.
27. ↑ Gilliam, "Temple of Soknobraisis," 187, 208, 11.
28. ↑ Gilliam, "Temple of Soknobraisis," 187, 217, 20.
29. ↑ Gilliam, "Temple of Soknobraisis," 187 no. 28.
30. ↑ Gilliam, "Temple of Soknobraisis," 187 nos. 30-32. Cf. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 199 n. 5.
31. ↑ Evans, "Social and Economic History," 204.
32. ↑ Deborah Hobson, "Agricultural Land and Economic Life in Soknopaiou Nesos," BASP 21, no. 1 (1984): 106 n. 37.
33. ↑ Hobson, "Agricultural Land," BASP 106 n. 37.