I. Mixture Of Population, Language

I. MIXTURE OF POPULATION, LANGUAGE
THE Jewish population of Palestine experienced, during the Greek and Roman period, as well as in previous centuries, great fluctuations both in numbers and extension. From the beginning of the Hellenistic period to the rising of the Maccabees the Jewish element must be regarded as gradually receding, the Greek as triumphantly advancing. The rising of the Maccabees and its consequences produced however an important change, Judaism gaining ground thereby both intensively and extensively. It was internally consolidated and extended its boundaries in nearly every direction: to the west, by the Judaizing of the towns of Gazara, Joppa and Jamnia (see above, § 7, and below, § 23. I.); to the south, by the compulsory conversion of the Idumaeans under John Hyrcanus (see § 8); to the north, by the conversion of the Ituraeans under Aristobulus I. (see § 9); and in all directions by the conquests of Alexander Jannaeus. It is true that the Judaism of these Asmonean princes from John Hyrcanus onwards was not that of the scribes and Pharisees; still they represented, though in their own fashion, the Jewish religion and nationality, as the example of the “Hellenistic Aristobulus” especially proves. Then, under Alexandra even the Pharisaic tendency again prevailed. Under the Romans and Herodians indeed the pursuit of a Graeco-Roman culture was again favoured as much as possible. But Pharisaic Judaism was now so established, both externally and internally, by the development of the last two centuries, that its state of possession could not thus be essentially encroached upon, and not till the convulsions of the wars under Vespasian and Hadrian did it again incur great losses.
For the times of Josephus we have somewhat more accurate information concerning the extension of the Jewish population in Palestine in the description he has given of the country in his Bell. Jud. iii. 3.[1] From this we learn—what is elsewhere confirmed—that of all the maritime towns, two only, viz. Joppa and Jamnia, which were Judaized in the Maccaibaean period, contained a chiefly Jewish population. In all the other coast towns the Gentile was the prevailing element (see also § 23. I.). In the interior, on the contrary, the countries of Judaea, Galilee and Peraea had an essentially Jewish population. To these were added the regions lying to the east of the Sea of Gennesareth, viz. Gamalitis, Gaulonitis, Batanaea and Trachonitis, which had a mixed Jewish and heathen population. Lastly the Samaritans also must in a wider sense be reckoned as belonging to the Jewish population.
[1] It is evident, that Josephus intends to give in the above-mentioned passage (Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 1-5) a description of the Jewish country, i.e. of those districts of Palestine, which were entirely or chiefly inhabited by Jews. For all Gentile districts are excluded from the description and only mentioned to define the boundaries of the Jewish regions. He thus first describes Galilee, which is bounded on the west by the region of Ptolemais; on the east by that of Hippos, Gadara, etc. (iii. 3. 1); then Peraea, which is bounded on the north by the region of Pella, on the east by that of Gerasa, Philadelphia, etc. (iii. 3. 6). Hereupon follows a description of Samaria (iii. 3. 4), and finally one of Judaea (iii. 3. 5). The latter extends from the Jordan to Joppa (μέχρις Ἰόπης), Joppa being thus not reckoned as a part of Judaea. The Hellenistic coast towns are all excluded from the description; and Josephus only says of the Jewish territory that it was not deprived of those enjoyments, which come from the sea, because it extended to the coast lands (iii. 3. 5: ἀφῄρηται δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ θαλάσσης τερπνῶν ἡ Ἰονδαία, τοῖς παραλίοις κατατείνουσα). To the four provinces mentioned, Josephus adds, by way of supplement: (1) the region of Jamnia and Joppa as being the only maritime towns of which the population was chiefly Jewish (comp. § 23. I.); and (2) the provinces of Gamalitis, Gaulonitis, Batanaea and Trachonitis, in the kingdom of Agrippa, because the Jewish element here formed at least a very considerable fraction. It is of special interest to observe, that in this whole description Josephus includes Samaria, thus evidently regarding the Samaritans also as Jews, though as heterodox Jews.
The threefold division of the Jewish region into Judaea, Galilee and Peraea (יְהוּדָה, נָּלִיל, עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן) is also repeatedly assumed in the Mishna.[2] The central country and nucleus of the whole was Judaea, which was bounded on the north by Samaria, on the east by the Jordan and the Dead Sea, on the west by the district of the Philistine-Hellenistic cities, on the south by Arabia Petraea. In Judaea was the centre of Jewish life; it was here that the new community had first reorganized itself after the Babylonian captivity, here that the rising of the Maccabees originated, and here that the learned and educational activity of the Pharisaic scribes had its chief seat. In the north, and separated from Judaea by Samaria, was Galilee, whose boundaries were to the north the district of Tyre; to the west, that of Ptolemais; to the east, Jordan and the Lake of Gennesareth. The population of Galilee also was mainly Jewish; for the inhabitants of this district had not joined the Samaritan schism, as might have been expected from the former common history of the kingdom of Ephraim. On the contrary, the tendency adopted by Judaism in the post-exilian period had been—we no longer know how or when, but certainly during the Persian period—successfully brought to bear in this district also, and an enduring religious association thus established between the inhabitants of Judaea and Galilee. Peraea, the third of the Jewish lands, lay beyond the river Jordan, and was bounded on the north by the district of Pella, on the east by the districts of Gerasa, Philadelphia, and Heshbon, and on the south by the kingdom of Arabia Petraea. In this province also the population was an essentially Jewish one.[3] Still, neither in Galilee nor Peraea must we conceive of the Jewish element as pure and unmixed. In the shifting course of history Jews and Gentiles had here been so often, and in such a variety of ways, thrown together, that the attainment of exclusive predominance by the Jewish element must be counted among the impossibilities. It was only in Judaea, that this was at least approximately arrived at by the energetic agency of the scribes during the course of centuries.
[2] Shebiith ix. 2; Kethuboth xiii. 10; Baba bathra iii. 2.
[3] Comp. e.g. Antt. xx. 1. 1 (the dispute of the Jews with the Philadelphians concerning boundaries); Bell. Jud. iv. 7. 4-6 (the share of the Jews of Peraea in the revolt). The Mishna too always assumes, that Peraea (עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן) is a land inhabited by Jews; see Shebiith ix. 2; Bikkurim i. 10; Taanith iii. 6; Kethuboth xiii. 10; Baba bathra iii. 2; Edujoth viii. 7; Menachoth viii. 3.
In spite of the common religion and nationality of the three provinces, many differences of manners and customs existed between their inhabitants, and these imparted a certain independence to their inner life, quite apart from the political separation repeatedly appearing. The Mishna mentions, e.g., slight differences in respect of the marriage laws between Judaea and Galilee,[4] varying customs in the intercourse between espoused persons,[5] differences of weights and coinage between Judaea and Galilee.[6] The three provinces are therefore looked upon as in certain respects “different countries.”[7]
[4] Kethuboth iv. 12.
[5] Jebamoth iv. 10; Kethuboth i. 5
[6] Terumoth x. 8; Kethuboth v. 9; Chullin xi. 2.
[7] E.g. in respect of the legal? principle, that the wife is not bound to accompany her husband to another country (Kethuboth xiii. 10), in respect of the law of usucaption (Baba bathra iii. 2).
The districts east of the Lake of Gennesareth (Gamalitis, Gaulonitis, Batanaea and Trachonitis) formed a somewhat motley assemblage. The population was a mixed one of Jews and Syrians (Bell. Jud. iii. 5: οἰκοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν μιγάδες Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ Σύροι). But besides the settled population, numerous nomadic hosts, from whom the former had much to suffer, were wandering about in these border lands of civilisation. Very favourable to them were the caves of this district, in which they could lay up stores of water and provisions, and in case of attack find refuge, together with their flocks and herds. Hence it was very difficult to subdue them. The powerful hand of Herod however succeeded in inducing among them a certain amount of order.[8] With the view of keeping these turbulent elements permanently in check, he frequently settled foreign colonists in Trachonitis; at first, three thousand Idumaeans;[9] then a colony of warlike Jews from Babylon, to whom he granted the privilege of immunity from taxation.[10] His sons and grandsons continued this work. Nevertheless one of the two Agrippas had to complain in an edict of the brutish manner of life (θηριώδης κατάστασις) of the inhabitants and of their abode in the caves(ἐνφωλεύειν).[11] Herod’s exertions for the promotion of culture at last introduced the Greek element into these countries. In the neighbourhood of Kanatha (see § 23. I.) are still found the ruins of a temple, which according to its Greek inscriptions belongs to the period of Herod the Great.[12] Greek inscriptions of the two Agrippas, especially of Agrippa II., are found in larger numbers in the neighbourhood of Hauran.[13] In the Roman period the Greek element predominated, at least externally, in these districts (see hereon Nr. ii. 1).
[8] Antt. xv. 10. 1.
[9] Antt. xvi. 9. 2.
[10] Antt. xvii. 2. 1-3. On the history of this colony, comp. also Vita, 11.
[11] The unfortunately very scanty fragments of this edict are given in Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, vol. iii. n. 2329. Thence also in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1873, p. 252.
[12] Comp. especially the inscriptions in Le Bas and Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2364.
[13] Le Bas and Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2112, 2135, 2211, 2329, 2365, 2413b. Thence also in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1873, p. 248 sqq.
The Samaritans also belonged in a wider sense to the Jewish population.[14] For their character is not rightly viewed till it is regarded from the twofold point of sight—(1) of their being indeed, according to their natural composition, a mixed people arising from the intermingling of the former Israelitish population with Gentile elements, especially with the heathen colonists introduced by the Assyrians; and (2) of their having a religion essentially identical with that of Israel at an earlier stage of development. Among the colonists, whom the Assyrians had planted (2 Kings 17:24 sqq.) in Samaria from the provinces of Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim, those from Cuthah (כּוּתָה, כּוּת, 2 Kings 17:24; 2 Kings 17:30) seem to have been particularly numerous. The inhabitants of Samaria were hence subsequently called Cuthites by the Jews (Χουθαῖοι in Joseph. Antt. ix. 14. 3, xi. 4. 4, 7. 2, xiii. 9. 1; in Rabbinic literature כּוּתִים[15]). We must not, however, confidently assume, that the ancient Israelitish population was entirely carried away, and the whole country peopled afresh by these heathen colonists. It is, on the contrary, certain, that a considerable percentage of the ancient population remained, and that the new population consisted of a mixture of these with the heathen immigrants. The religion of this mingled people was, according to the Bible (2 Kings 17:24-41), at first a mixed religion,—a combination of the heathen rites introduced by the colonists with the old Israelite worship of Jahveh upon the high places. Gradually however the Israelitish religion must have obtained a decided preponderance. For, from what we know with certainty of the religion of the Samaritans (of course leaving malicious reports out of question), it was a pure Israelitish monotheism. They acknowledged the unity of God and the authority of Moses as the greatest of the prophets; they observed the Jewish rite of circumcision on the eighth day, the sanctification of the Sabbath, and the Jewish annual festivals. Nay, they even relinquished the pre-Deuteronomic standpoint of the worship of Jahveh upon high places, accepted the whole Pentateuch as the law of Israel, and consequently acknowledged the unity of the Jewish worship. It is only in the circumstance of their transferring this worship not to Jerusalem but to Gerizim that we perceive the after effect of the older standpoint. Here, according to the somewhat suspicious account of Josephus, they built in the time of Alexander the Great[16] a temple of their own; and even after its destruction by John Hyrcanus, Gerizim continued to be their sacred mountain and the seat of their worship.[17] They did not indeed participate in the further development of Pharisaic Judaism, but rejected all that went beyond the injunctions of the Pentateuch. Nor did they accept any of the sacred writings of the Jewish canon except the Pentateuch. But for all this the right to call themselves “Israelites” cannot be denied them, so far, that is, as religion and not descent is in question.
[14] Kautzsch gives in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. xiii. 351-355, the most complete catalogue of the copious literature on the Samaritans. Comp. especially: Cellarius, Collectanea historiae Samaritanae, 1688 (also in Ugolini, Thes. t. xxii.); Robinson’s Palestine, iii. 130, 131; Juynboll, Commentarii in historiam gentis Samaritanae, Lugd. Bat. 1846; Winer, RWB. ii. 369-373; Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, i. 255-269; Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iii. 580 sqq.; Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 44-89; Petermann in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. xiii. 359-391. Hausrath, Zeitgesch., 2nd ed. i. 12-23; Schrader in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 149-154; Appel, Quaestiones de rebus Samaritanorum sub imperio Romanorum peractis, Gotting. 1874; Nutt, A Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and Literature, London 1874; Kohn, “Zur Sprache,” “Literatur und Dogmatik des Samaritaner” (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. v. No. iv. 1876); Kautzsch in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch des bibl. Altertums, sub voce; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments, § 381, 382; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, div. ii. 1883, pp. 1062-1071; Kautzsch in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. xiii. 340-355. Various contributions to the Samaritan literature by Heidenheim in the deutschen Vierteljahrsschrift für engl.-theol. Forschung und Kritik, 1861 sqq.
[15]a כּוּתִים in the Mishna in the following places: Berachoth vii. 1, viii. 8; Pea ii. 7; Demai iii. 4, v. 9, vi. 1, vii. 4; Terumoth iii. 9; Challa iv. 7; Shekalim i. 5; Rosh hashana ii. 2; Kethuboth iii. 1; Nedarim iii. 10; Gittin i. 5; Kiddushin iv. 3; Ohaloth xvii. 3; Tohoroth v. 8; Nidda iv 1, 2, vii. 3, 4, 5.
[16] Josephus, Antt. xi. 7. 2; 8. 2 sqq. The history of Sanballat and his son-in-law, with which Josephus connects the building of the temple on Gerizim, happened according to Nehemiah’s account in his own days (Nehemiah 13:28), about one hundred years before Alexander the Great.
[17] Destruction by John Hyrcanus, Antt. xiii. 9. 1. Continuance of veneration for it: John 4:20; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 1; Bell. Jud. iii. 7. 32.
The position of Judaism proper with regard to the Samaritans was always a hostile one: the ancient antagonism of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah was here carried on in a new form. When the Samaritans desired, in the time of Zerubbabel, to co-operate in the building of the temple at Jerusalem, they were rejected by the Jews (Ezra 4:1); and “the foolish people who dwell in Sichem” are as much hated by the Son of Sirach as the Edomites and Philistines (Sir_50:25-26). The Samaritans on their side requited this disposition with like hostility.[18] The legal appointments, nevertheless, of Rabbinic Judaism with respect to the Samaritans, are, from the standpoint of Pharisaism, generally correct and just.[19] The Samaritans are never absolutely treated as “foreigners,” but as a mingled people, whose Israelitish descent was not indeed proved, but always to be regarded as possible.[20] Hence their membership of “the congregation of Israel” is not denied, but only designated as doubtful.[21] Their observance of the law, e.g. with regard to tithes and the Levitical laws of purification, did not indeed correspond with Pharisaic requirements, on which account they were in many respects placed on a level with Gentiles.[22] They were never however treated as idolaters (עכ״ום), but, on the contrary, decidedly distinguished from them.[23] Their observance of the Sabbath is occasionally mentioned,[24] and it is assumed as at least possible, that they could say a genuine Israelitish grace at meals.[25] In fact they stand, so far as their observance of the law is concerned, on the same level as the Sadducees.[26]
[18] Nehemiah 4:1 sqq.; Luke 9:52-53; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, xx. 6. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 3; Rosh hashana ii. 2.
[19] A collection of Rabbinical definitions is given in the treatise כוּתים, in the seven small treatises published by Raphael Kirchheim (see above, § 3); the passages of the Mishna (see above, note 14a); comp. also Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 56 (Opp. ii. 212); Hamburger, as before quoted.
[20] Compare, on the one hand, Shekalim i. 5 (obligatory sacrifices for the temple are to be received only from Israelites, not from Gentiles nor even from Samaritans); on the other, Berachoth vii. 1 (when three Israelites have eaten together, they are bound to prepare themselves formally for prayer; this also holds good if one of the three is a Samaritan); Kethuboth iii. 1 (the claim for a money compensation on account of cohabitation with an Israelitish virgin holds good in respect of a Samaritan virgin).
[21] Kiddushin iv. 3.
[22] Comp. in general, Demai vii. 4; Tohoroth v. 8; Nidda iv. 1, 2, vii. 3-5.
[23] Berachoth vii. 1; Demai iii. 4, v. 9, vi. 1; Terumoth iii. 9. The assertion, that the Samaritans worshipped the image of a dove, is a slander first appearing in the Talmud (Jer. Aboda sara v. fol. 44a; Bab. Chullin 6a; see Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, s.v. יון), and one, of which the Mishna as yet knows nothing.
[24] Nedarim iii. 10.
[25] Berachoth viii. 8.
[26] Comp. Nidda iv. 2: “The Sadducean women, when they follow the customs of their fathers, are equal to the Samaritan women.” Epiphanius says of the Sadducean women, Haer. 14: τὰ πάντα δὲ ἴσα Σαμαρείταις φυλάττουσιν.
The language of the Jewish population of all the districts here mentioned was, since the last centuries before Christ, no longer Hebrew, but Aramaic.[27] How and when the change was effected, cannot now be ascertained. At any rate, it was not the exiles, who returned from Babylon, who brought the Aramaic thence, for the post-exilian literature of the Israelites is also chiefly Hebrew. Nor was the Aramaic dialect of Palestine the Eastern (Babylonian), but the Western Aramaic. Hence it must have penetrated gradually to Palestine from the north. The period of the transition is marked by the canonical books of Ezra and Daniel (the latter about 167-165 B.C.), which are written partly in Hebrew, partly in Aramaic (Aramaic are Ezra 4:8-6, 18; 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4-7; Daniel 2:28). A saying of Joses ben Joeser, about the middle of the second century before Christ, is cited in Aramaic in the Mishna,[28] also certain sayings of Hillel and other authorities.[29] That Aramaic was in the time of Christ the sole popular language of Palestine, is evident from the words mentioned in the New Testament: ἀββᾶ (Mark 14:36), ἀκελδαμάχ (Acts 1:19), γαββαθᾶ (John 19:13), γολγοθᾶ (Matthew 27:33), ἐφφαθά (Mark 7:34), κορβανᾶς (Matthew 27:6), μαμωνᾶς (Matthew 6:24), μαρὰν ἀθα (1 Corinthians 16:22), Μεσσίας = מְשִׁיחָא (John 1:41), πάσχα (Matthew 26:17), ῥακά (Matthew 5:22), σατανᾶς (Matthew 16:23), ταλιθὰ κούμι (Mark 5:41); to which may be added names of persons, such as Κηφᾶς, Μάρθα, Ταβιθά[30], and the numerous names compounded with בַּר (Barabbas, Bartholomew, Barjesus, Barjonas, Barnabas, Barsabas, Bartimæus). The words, too, of Christ upon the cross: Ἐλωῒ ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί (Mark 15:34), are Aramaic. Hebrew was so little current with the common people, that the lessons from the Bible read in public worship had to be translated verse by verse into the dialect of the country.[31] Notwithstanding however this complete prevalence of Aramaic, Hebrew still remained in use as “the sacred language” (לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ). The Holy Scriptures were read aloud in it before as afterwards; and in certain liturgical cases the use of Hebrew was absolutely required.[32] Hebrew also continued to be the language of the learned, in which even the legal discussions of the scribes were carried on. Not until about the third century after Christ do we find Aramaic in use for the last-named purpose; and while the Mishna was still in Hebrew (second century), the Palestinian Talmud was (fourth century) in Aramaic. The latter is our most copious source for the knowledge of this language of Palestine. Some hints concerning dialectic differences of pronunciation between Judaea and Galilee are given in the Gospels and the Talmud.[33]
[27] Comp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832), p. 7 sq.; Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, iii. 44 sqq., 58 sqq.; Böhl, Forschungen nach einer, Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu (1873), pp. 4-28; Delitzsch, Ueber die palästinische Volkssprache, welche Jesu und seine Jünger geredet haben (“Saat auf Hoffnung”), 1874, pp. 195-210; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments, § 40; the same, Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments, § 416, 417; Kautzsch, Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (1884), pp. 4-12.
[28] Edujoth viii. 4.
[29] Hillel, Aboth i. 13, ii. 6; others, Aboth v. 22, 23.
[30] The accentuation in our editions is very inconsistent. Consistent accentuation would require ῥακᾶ, ταλιθᾶ, Ταβιθᾶ.
[31] Megilla iv. 4, 6, 10. Comp. below, § 27.
[32] Jebamoth xii. 6; Sota vii. 2-4, viii. 1, ix. 1; Megilla i. 8. See especially Sota vii. 2: “The following portions are delivered in the sacred language alone: the section of Scripture at the offering of the first-fruits, the formula at the Chaliza, the blessings and curses, the blessing of the priest, the form of blessing of the high priest, the portion read by the king (at the Feast of Tabernacles in the Sabbatic year), the formula at the killing of a calf (on account of one found dead), and the speech of one anointed for war when addressing the army.” On the other hand, e.g. the Shma, the Shmone-Esre (see on this, § 27, Appendix), grace at meals, etc., might be said in any language (Sota vii. 1). All this applies to oral delivery. In writing, the use of Hebrew was required for the text of the Tefillin and Mesusoth; for all besides, even for the Scriptures, any language was allowed, according, however, to Rabban Gamaliel, only Greek beside Hebrew for the latter (Megilla i. 8). The formula for the writing of divorcement was usually, according to K. Juda, Aramaic (Gittin ix. 3), but might also be Greek (Gittin ix. 8).
[33] Matthew 26:20; Matthew 26:73, and its interpreters—Buxtorf, Lex. s.v. גליל, col. 434 sqq.; Lightfoot, Centuria chorograph. Matthaeo praemissa, c. 87 (Opp. ii. 232 sq.); Morinus, Exercitationes biblicae (1699), ii. 18. 2, p. 514 sqq.; Aug. Pfeiffer, Decas selecta exercitationum sacrarum, pp. 206-216 (in the Appendix to his Dubia vexata script. sacrae, Leipsic and Frankfort 1685); Wetstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 26:73; Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 184 sq. Further, older literature in Wolf, Curae phil. in Nov. Test. on Matthew 26:73.