Nerva / Palm IVDAICI

Nerva Æ Sestertius. 27.84g, 33mm, 6h. Rome, AD 96.
O: IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS II P P, laureate head to right
R: FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA, palm-tree, with two clusters of dates; S-C across fields.
- RIC II 58; BMCRE 88. From the Antonio Carmona Collection.

According to the Roman historian Suetonius: "More than any other, the Fiscus Iudaicus was administered very severely; and to it were brought, or reported, those who either had lived the life of a Jew unprofessed, or concealing their origin, had not paid the tax imposed upon by the people. I remember that it was of interest to me during my youth when a ninety-year-old man was brought before the procurator and a very crowded court to see wheather he was circumcised."

Marius Heemstra challenged the earlier interpretation of the reverse inscription. "The embarrassment (CALVMNIA) of the Jewish Tax (FISCI IVDAICI) is removed," ie., that the Jewish tax, which had been introduced by Vespasian after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, was repealed by Nerva, in whole or in part. Heemstra also disagrees with the theory that the CALVMNIA, was "the circumcision test" described by Suetonius (Dom. 12.1-2).

Rather, Heemstra maintains that the tax was not repealed, but, rather, that the legend should be translated: "The removal of the wrongful accusation (CALVMNIA) of the Fiscus Judaicus (the imperial tax collection agency)."

What was the CALVMNIA? Meestra explains that before the "removal" of the "wrongful accusation," by Nerva, it is highly plausible that the charge of 'leading a Jewish life without publicly acknowledging that fact' could have been levied against high-ranking Romans who could then have been victims of the Fiscus Judaicus, which would confiscate their wealth.

Conviction could occur either on political grounds, instigated by the emperor himself (Domitian), or because any affiliation with Judaism, however, small could lead to an accusation of "atheism," which to Romans meant not recognizing their pagan gods.

Meestra points out that an important impact of the new law was that it necessitated a clarification in the definition of who was the taxpayer, and, thus who was considered to be a Jew. Instead of "each one of the Jew"s (Josephus), or, "those belonging to the Jewish gens" (Suetonius), the definition changed to "those Jews who continued to observe their ancestral customs" (Dio). In practice, these were the Jews that had been paying the tax in the first place.

By removing the CALVMNIA "the wrongful accusation," Nerva succeeded in transforming the definition of 'Jew' from an ethnic one into a religious one, which both the Romans and Jews adopted.

The coin represents Nerva's order not to abolish the tax itself but of the insulting method of collecting the Jewish tax. - See discussion in: Marius Heemstra, "The interprretation and Wider Context of Nerva's Fiscus Judaicus Sestertius, Judaea and Rome in Coins 65 BCE - 135 CE, London: Spink and Sons, 2010, 187-201.

David Hendin quotes David Vagi for another theory for the Fiscus Judaicus in his Guide to Biblical Coins, Fifth Edition.
"In all likelihood (this reverse type) celebrates Vespasian's requirement of 71/2 CE that the annual didrachm Temple Tax, the Fiscus Iudaicus, be paid to Rome rather than to the Jewish Temple.
This tax was extended to every Jew, male and female, from the age of three, and even to slaves of Jewish households. The proceeds were earmarked for the rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Captiolinus in Rome, which had been destroyed in the last days of the Roman Civil War of 68-69."
"Thus, FISCI IVDIACI CALVMNIA SVBLATA ('the insult of the Jewish Tax has been removed') would refer to Vespasian's removal of the insult that prior to 71/2 the Jewish Temple Tax had been collected by Jews for their own use. After all, Romans considered themselves the only legitimate taxing authority within the empire, and the only rightful beneficiary of tax revenues."

"In summary, the idea that this coin represents a Roman apology, or a Roman acknowledgment of its own callous behavior, must be abandoned" (p. 458).