II. The Strictly Jewish Territory

II. THE STRICTLY JEWISH TERRITORY
THE LITERATURE
Selden, De synedriis et praefecturis juridicis reterum Ebraeorum, lib. i. Londini 1650, lib. ii. Londini 1653, lib. iii. Londini 1655 (reprint of the whole work, Amstelodami 1679). The first book treats of the judicial institutions of the Jews ante legis in Sinai dationem, the second of these same institutions subsequent to the giving of the law at Sinai, while the third is specially devoted to the consideration of the prerogatives of the supreme court (the Sanhedrim). In spite of all its critical shortcomings this learned work is still valuable on account of the rich fund of material it contains.
Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, vol. i. 1853, pp. 53-64.
Winer, Realwörterb., arts. Alter, Aelteste; Gericht; Städte.
Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, arts. Aelteste (by Schenkel); Gerichte (by Wittichen); Städte (by Furrer).
Riehm’s Handwörterb. des bibl Altertums, arts. Aelteste; Gerichtswesen; Dorf; Stadt.
Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xiv. p. 721 (art. Städte).
Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xv. p. 324 f. (art. Synedrium).
Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung des römischen Reichs, vol. ii. pp. 336-346.
Köhler, Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte Alten Testaments, vol. i. 1875, p. 350 f.
Reuss, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s, sec. cxiv.
The strictly Jewish territory—leaving Samaria out of view—consisted of the three provinces of Judaea, Galilee and Peraea, and was enclosed within such boundaries as would naturally be formed by the contiguous portions of the districts belonging to the surrounding Hellenistic towns (comp. above, § 23. I.). The Gentile element in those provinces never formed more at the very outside than a minority of the population, while we may venture to assume that, in the towns, the municipal councils were composed exclusively of Jews. For there cannot be a doubt that, in Jewish towns as well, there were civic representative bodies to whom the management of the public affairs of the community was entrusted. So far back even as the earliest period in the history of Israel we find frequent mention of “the elders of the city” (זִקְנֵי הָעִיר) in the capacity of local authorities (see in general, Deuteronomy 19:12; Deuteronomy 21:2 ff; Deuteronomy 22:15 ff; Deuteronomy 25:7 ff.; Joshua 20:4; Judges 8:14; Rth_4:2 ff.; 1 Samuel 11:3; 1 Samuel 16:4; 1 Samuel 30:26 ff.; 1 Kings 21:8; 1 Kings 21:11). Of how many members this body was composed we are hardly ever told, but their number must have been something considerable. In Succoth, for example, there were as many as seventy-seven (Judges 8:14). Those officials represented the community in every department of its affairs and accordingly they were also called upon to act in the capacity of judges (see, for example, Deuteronomy 22:15). But, besides these, “judges” (שֹׁפְטִים) and “officers” (שֹׁטְרִים) are also specially mentioned (both classes in Deuteronomy 16:18; while in 2 Chronicles 19:5 ff. the instituting of “judges” is ascribed to Jehoshaphat). Now seeing that the judges are expressly mentioned along with the elders (Deuteronomy 21:2; Ezra 10:14), the two orders of officials are in any case to be regarded as distinct, but probably only to this extent, that the judges were those among the elders to whom the administration of justice was specially entrusted. Similarly the “officers” are also to be regarded as belonging to the number of the “elders,” their special function again being to take charge of the executive department.[677] The organization then that existed in later times is to be assumed as having been substantially identical with the one here in question. We further find that the “elders” of the city are also frequently mentioned during the Persian and Geeek era (Ezra 10:14; Jdt_6:16; Jdt_6:21; Jdt_7:23; Jdt_8:10; Jdt_10:6; Jdt_13:12). As regards the Roman period again, we have evidence of the existence of local tribunals at that time in such a statement, for example, as that of Josephus, where he mentions that Albinus, actuated by greed, liberated for a money consideration certain individuals who, for the crime of robbery, had been sentenced to imprisonment by their respective local courts (βουλή).[678] From what is here stated we can further gather that it was the βουλή itself that discharged the judicial functions. Still it is quite possible that in the larger towns especially there may have been, besides the βουλή, certain other courts of a special kind. Again it is the local Sanhedrims that are to be understood as referred to when, in Matthew 10:17 = Mark 13:9, it is stated that the believers would be delivered εἰς συνέδρια; we may also regard as belonging to the same category those courts that, in Matthew 5:22, are assumed to be inferior in point of jurisdiction to the high court of the Sanhedrim; and similarly with regard to the πρεσβύτεροι of Capernaum (Luke 7:3). But it is in the Mishna above all that the existence of local courts throughout the country of the Jews is presupposed from beginning to end.[679] As regards the number of members of which such courts were composed, some have been disposed to infer from the Mishna that the most inferior ones consisted of not more than three persons. This however is based upon a pure misapprehension. For the passages appealed to in support of this view do nothing more than simply enumerate the various questions for the deciding of which and the various causes for the trying of which three persons were deemed sufficient. Thus three, for example, were considered sufficient to decide an action involving money, or to pronounce judgment in cases of robbery and assault, or to award damages and such like;[680] this number was also sufficient to sentence any one to be scourged, to determine the date of the new moon, and decide as to the intercalary year;[681] also for the laying on of the hands (upon a sin-offering offered in the name of the congregation), and for breaking the heifer’s neck (on the occasion of any person being found murdered). Further cases for the disposal of which only three judges were necessary were those connected with the Chaliza and the refusal of a man to marry the wife of his deceased brother (Deuteronomy 25:7-9), the redemption of the produce of fruit trees during the first four years of their growth, the redemption of the second tithe the value of which had not been previously determined, the purchasing back of certain things that were holy to the Lord, and so on.[682] But nowhere is it said, that there were distinct local courts consisting of only three persons. In what sense we are to understand the statements of the Mishna above referred to may be readily seen from another passage[683] which runs thus: “Actions involving money are decided by three persons. That is to say, each of the two parties in the case chooses a judge and then both the parties or, according to another view, both the judges, choose a third to act along with them.” As matter of fact the most subordinate of the local courts consisted of seven persons. For one can scarcely be far wrong in assuming that the statement of Josephus to the effect that Moses ordained that “seven men were to bear rule in every city, and that two men of the tribe of Levi were to be appointed to act as officers in every court,” was intended to be regarded as a description of the state of things that existed in Josephus’ own time, for there is no mention of anything of this kind in the Pentateuch.[684] This is corroborated by the fact that Josephus himself, when on one occasion he wanted to introduce a model Jewish constitution into Galilee, established a court with seven judges in every town.[685] No doubt from this latter circumstance one might rather infer that this organization had had no existence in Galilee previous to the revolution. But the boast of Josephus, that he was the first to create this the ideal of a Jewish constitution, may be said to be true only to this extent, that he took steps to have it more rigidly put in force. In the Talmud too we find “the seven leading men of the city” (שבעה טובי העיר) referred to on one occasion as forming a public board which, among other things, was entrusted with the management of the financial affairs of the community.[686] What Josephus has stated with regard to two Levites being always appointed to act as ὑπηρέται to the local courts (see above note [687] is not without its analogies at least in the Old Testament.[688] According to the Mishna there were certain special cases in which it was necessary to have priests as judges.[689] In the more populous places the local courts would appear to have been composed of twenty-three members. At least we find a statement in the Mishna to the effect that an inferior Sanhedrim (סַנְהֶדְרִין קְטַנָּה) consisted of twenty-three persons, and that one of this sort was assigned to every town with a population of at least 120 or, according to R. Nehemiah’s view, of at least 230, in order that there might thus be a judge for every ten of the inhabitants.[690] It must be confessed however that here too, as in so many other instances, we have no guarantee that the actual state of things quite corresponded with these regulations. Those courts of twenty-three members were likewise empowered to deal with criminal cases of a serious nature (דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת),[691] for we can also see from Matthew 5:21-22, that the trying and sentencing of murderers did not belong exclusively to the jurisdiction of the supreme court of the Sanhedrim.
[677] See in particular, Knobel’s notes on Exodus 5:6 and Deuteronomy 16:18.
[678] Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 1: καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ λῃστείᾳ δεδεμένους ὑπὸ τῆς παρʼ ἑκάστοις βουλῆς ἢ τῶν προτέρων ἐπιτρόπων ἀπελύτρου τοῖς συγγενέσι.
[679] Shebiith x. 4: The terms of the Prosbol-formula were substantially as follows: “I so and so declare before you THE JUDGES OF SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE that I,” etc. Sota i. 3: How is the husband (of a woman suspected of adultery) to proceed? He is to bring her before the local court, which will assign him two lawyers, etc. Sanhedrin xi. 4: A criminal of that sort is tried and executed neither by the court belonging to his own town nor by the court at Jabne, etc.
[680] Sanhedrin i. 1.
[681] Sanhedrin i. 2. Comp. Rosh hashana ii. 9, iii. 1.
[682] Sanhedrin i. 3.
[683] Sanhedrin iii. 1.
[684] Antt. iv. 8. 14. ἀρχέτωσαν δὲ καθʼ ἑκάστην πόλιν ἄνδρες ἑπτά … ἑκάστῃ δὲ ἀρχῇ δύο ἄνδρες ὑπηρέται διδόσθωσαν ἐκ τῆς τῶν Λευιτῶν Φυλῆς. Again in reproducing the law with regard to restitution (Exodus 22:6 ff.), Josephus presupposes the existence of courts with seven judges, Antt. iv. 8. 38: εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἐπίβουλον δρῶν ὁ πιστευθεὶς ἀπολέσειεν, ἀφικόμενος ἐπὶ τοῦς ἑπτὰ κριτὰς ὁμνύτω τὸν θεόν κ.τ.λ.
[685] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 5, ἑπτὰ δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει δικαστὰς [κατέστησεν]. Those courts of seven judges were called upon to deal only with causes of a more trifling kind, but not with τὰ μείζω πράγματα καὶ τὰς φονικὰς δίκας, the adjudication of which was rather reserved for the council of seventy which Josephus had established.
[686] Megilla xxvi.a: “Rabba said, that regulation (of the Mishna with regard to the sale of synagogues and their furniture) applies only to those cases in which the seven leading men of the town have not disposed of them by public sale. But if they shall have sold them publicly,” etc. Comp. also Rhenferd’s Investigatio praefectorum et ministrorum synagogue, ii. 25 (in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.).
[687] Antt. iv. 8. 14. ἀρχέτωσαν δὲ καθʼ ἑκάστην πόλιν ἄνδρες ἑπτά … ἑκάστῃ δὲ ἀρχῇ δύο ἄνδρες ὑπηρέται διδόσθωσαν ἐκ τῆς τῶν Λευιτῶν Φυλῆς. Again in reproducing the law with regard to restitution (Exodus 22:6 ff.), Josephus presupposes the existence of courts with seven judges, Antt. iv. 8. 38: εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἐπίβουλον δρῶν ὁ πιστευθεὶς ἀπολέσειεν, ἀφικόμενος ἐπὶ τοῦς ἑπτὰ κριτὰς ὁμνύτω τὸν θεόν κ.τ.λ.
[688] Deuteronomy 21:5; 1 Chronicles 23:4; 1 Chronicles 26:29. Knobel’s note on Deuteronomy 16:18.
[689] Sanhedrin i. 3. Comp. on the subject generally of priests acting in the capacity of judges, Ezekiel 44:24, and Smend’s note on this passage.
[690] Sanhedrin i. 6. Comp. Selden, De synedriis ii. 5. Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 554. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. xv. p. 324 f.
[691] Sanhedrin i. 4.
As in the case of the Hellenistic communes, so too within the Jewish domain the villages were subordinate to the towns, and the smaller towns again to the larger ones. The distinction between a town (עִיר) and a village (חָצֵר, seldom כָּפָר) is presupposed from beginning to end of the Old Testament itself; the former, as a rule, being an inhabited place surrounded by a wall, and the latter one that is not so enclosed (see in particular, Leviticus 25:29-31); at the same time, towns themselves are also sometimes distinguished as walled and unwalled (Deuteronomy 3:5; Esther 9:19). Moreover, Josephus and the New Testament uniformly distinguish between the two notions πόλις and κώμη.[692] On one occasion the New Testament speaks of κωμοπόλεις of Palestine (Mark 1:38), i.e. towns which, as regards their constitution, only enjoyed the rank of a κώμη.[693] In the Mishna there are three conceptions of this matter, and these are uniformly distinguished from each other: that of a large city (כָּרָךְ), then that of a city (עִיר), and lastly that of a village (כָּפָר).[694] The distinguishing characteristic in the case of the first two would seem to have been merely the difference in size; for even an ordinary town (עִיר) might be enclosed by a wall, and indeed it usually was so.[695] In the Old Testament there is already frequent allusion to the subordination of the villages to the towns. In the lists of towns given in the Book of Joshua, and above all in the fifteenth and nineteenth chapters, we often meet with the expression, the “cities with their villages” (הֶעָרִים וְחַצְרֵיהֶן). Elsewhere we frequently read of a city and its daughter (בְּנוֹתֶיהָ), Numbers 21:25; Numbers 21:32; Numbers 32:42; Joshua 15:45-47; Joshua 17:11; Judges 11:26; Nehemiah 11:25 ff.; 1 Chronicles 2:23; 1 Chronicles 5:16; 1 Chronicles 7:28 f., 8:12, 18:1; 2 Chronicles 13:19; 2 Chronicles 28:18; Ezekiel 16:46 ff; Ezekiel 26:6; Ezekiel 30:18; 1Ma_5:8; 1Ma_5:65. And in keeping with the idea of the daughter, we also find the term “mother” employed to designate the chief town of a district (2 Samuel 20:19). From all this it is, in any case, clear that the villages were everywhere dependent upon the cities. But it is also highly probable that this was no less true of the smaller towns in relation to the larger ones. For frequently it is not only to villages, but also to smaller dependent towns that the designation “mother” is applied; at least in several instances is this most undoubtedly the case (Numbers 21:25; Joshua 15:45-47; 1 Chronicles 2:23). And what we thus gather from the Old Testament may be assumed to be no less applicable to later times as well (comp. especially, 1Ma_5:8 : τὴν Ἰαζὴρ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς; ibid. 5:65: τὴν Χεβρὼν καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτῆς). But it is in the country on the east of the Jordan above all, and in the district of Trachonitis in particular, that capital villages (μητροκωμίαι), i.e. villages holding a position corresponding to that of a capital town, were most frequently to be met with.[696] Thus Phaena, the modern Mismie, is called μητροκωμία τοῦ Τράχωνος.[697] We have another example of a μητροκωμία in the case of Borechath, the modern Breike, which is also situated within the district of Trachonitis.[698] Epiphanius mentions τὴν Βάκαθον μητροκωμίαν τῆς Ἀραβίας τῆς Φιλαδελφίας.[699] Of course those testimonies only date from somewhere between the second and the fourth centuries of our era; moreover, the population of those districts, though of a mixed character, was composed chiefly of Gentiles.
[692] Comp. Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 510; also the materials to be found in the concordances to the New Testament. For the conception of a κώμη in the Romano-Hellenistic sense, consult Marquardt’s Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. i. (2nd ed. 1881) p. 16 f.
[693] The term κωμόπολις is also to be met with occasionally in Strabo and the Byzantine writers; consult the Lexicons and Wetzstein’s Nov. Test., note on Mark 1:38.
[694] Megilla i. 1, ii. 3; Kethuboth xiii. 10; Kiddushin ii. 3; Baba mezia iv. 6, viii. 6; Arachin vi. 5.
[695] עִיר חוֹמָה, Arachin ix. 3 ff.; Kelim i. 7. On כָּיָךְ, comp. Lightfoot, Horae hebr., note on Mark 1:38 (Opp. ii. 437), and Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. This word is, strictly speaking, Aramaic (כְּרַךְ) and frequently occurs in the Targums in the sense of a fortification, a stronghold, a fortified town. See Buxtorf’s Lex. and Levy’s Chald. Wörterb., s.v.
[696] See in general, Kuhn, Die städtische, und bürgerl. Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. 380 ff. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. i. 2nd ed. p. 427, note 1. The Lexicons under the word μητροκωμία.
[697] Corp. Inscr. Graec. No. 4551 = Le Bas et Waddington, Inscr. t. iii. No. 2524. The inscription dates from the time of Alexander Severus (222-235 A.D.). On Phaena, see Raumer’s Pal. p. 254 f. Porter’s Five Years in Damascus, ii. 244. Kuhn, ii. 384.
[698] Le Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2396.
[699] Epiphanius, Anacephal. p. 145.
Any notices of a more special kind that we have regarding the subordination of certain provinces to some of the larger cities apply exclusively to Galilee and Judaea, and only date from the Roman period. In Galilee, Sepphoris was the place which Gabinius fixed upon as the seat of one of the five συνέδρια or σύνοδοι; and as the one which sat here was the only one in the province (Antt. xiv. 5. 4; Bell Jud. i. 8. 5), Sepphoris became, in consequence, the centre of an organization that embraced the whole of Galilee. It is true the arrangement of Gabinius here referred to was of but short duration. But in later times as well, and particularly under the Idumaean dynasty, the whole of Galilee was always subordinate to some one capital city, whether Sepphoris on the one hand or Tiberias on the other (see above, notes [700] and [701] Here then we have an instance of a Jewish province being placed in subordination to a capital city that was not of a purely Jewish character.[702]
[700] Marquardt, i. 118 sq.
[701] Antt. xv. 8. 5. See below, Samaria, Geba, Heshbon.
[702] The relation is really one of subordination, for Josephus speaks distinctly of an ἄρχειν and ὑπακούειν; see above, notes 363 and 364.
In Judaea again it is to the division of the province into eleven or ten toparchies, vouched for both by Josephus and Pliny, that a special interest attaches. According to Josephus, Judaea was divided into the following eleven κληρουχίαι or τοπαρχίαι:—(1) Jerusalem, (2) Gophna, (3) Akrabatta, (4) Thamna, (5) Lydda, (6) Ammaus, (7) Pella, (8) Idumaea, (9) Engaddi, (10) Herodeion, (11) Jericho.[703] Of these, the seven printed in italics are also mentioned by Pliny, who, by adding to them the following three: Jopica, Betholeptephene, Orine,[704] brings up the total number of toparchies to ten. The mention of Orine instead of Jerusalem cannot be said to make any material difference. But the mention of Joppa in this instance is quite as erroneous as that of Pella by Josephus, for both of these were independent towns and did not belong to Judaea proper. Bethleptepha, on the other hand, is mentioned by Josephus in another passage, and that as being the capital of a toparchy.[705] We may therefore obtain a correct list if we adopt that of Josephus and substitute Bethleptepha for Pella.[706] In that case the toparchies would be grouped as follows:[707] in the centre, Jerusalem; to the north of it, Gophna[708] and Akrabatta;[709] to the north-west, Thamna[710] and Lydda;[711] to the west, Emmaus;[712] to the south-west, Bethleptepha;[713] to the south, Idumaea;[714] to the south-east, east, Engaddi[715] and Herodeion;[716] to the east, Jericho.[717] It may be assumed as self-evident that this division was made chiefly for administrative reasons and, above all, with a view to greater convenience in the collecting of the revenue. Whether those districts were at the same time districts for judicial purposes as well, it is impossible to say. In any case it is probable that the whole organization does not date farther back than the Roman period, for no trace of it is to be met with previous to that time.[718] The authorities from whom our information is derived exhibit a singular indecision in their conceptions of the political character of the capitals of those districts, inasmuch as at one time they are described as ̔πόλεις, at another as κῶμαι. It is true that here nothing is to be made of the circumstance that Eusebius treats the places in question for the most part as κῶμαι, for by his time matters had undergone an essential change.[719] But Josephus himself is also somewhat undecided. For example, he speaks of Emmaus as being the μητρόπολις of the district in which it stood, and obviously therefore as that of the toparchy;[720] whereas, in speaking of Lydda, on the other hand, he calls it merely a κώμη, thus employing what would appear to be the more correct designation (see above, note [721] We are therefore bound to assume, that from the Romano-Hellenistic point of view none of the places in question were πόλεις in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, they were not civic communities with a Hellenistic constitution; while it was only in deference to Jewish and popular usage that they were spoken of as “cities.” Strictly speaking, they ought rather to be called κωμοπόλεις (see above, note [722] or, viewed in their relation to their respective toparchies, μητροκωμίαι (see above, notes [723][724][725]
[703] Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 5: μερίζεται δὲ εἰς ἕνδεκα κληρουχίας, ὧν ἄρχει μὲν ὡς βασίλειον τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα, προανίσχουσα τῆς περιοίκου πάσης ὥσπερ ἡ κεφαλὴ σώματος, αἱ λοιπαὶ δὲ μετʼ αὐτὴν διῄρηνται τὰς τοπαρχίας. Γόφνα δευτέρα, καὶ μετʼ αὐτὴν Ἀκραβαττά, Θαμνὰ πρὸς ταύταις καὶ Λύδδα καὶ Ἀμμαοῦς καὶ Πέλλη καὶ Ἰδουμαία καὶ Ἐγγαδδαὶ καὶ Ἡρώδειον καὶ Ἱεριχοῦς.
[704] Piiny, Hist. Nat. v. 14. 70: Reliqua Judaea dividitur in toparchias X quo dicemus ordine: Hiericuntem palmetis consitam, fontibus riguam, Emmaum, Lyddam, Jopicam, Acrebitenam, Gophaniticam, Thamniticam, Betholeptephenen, Orinen, in qua fuere Hierosolyma longe clarissima urbium orientis non Iudaeae modo, Herodium cum oppido inlustri ejusdem nominis.
[705] Bell. Jud. iv. 8. 1: τὴν Βεθλεπτηφῶν τοπαρχίαν.
[706] Comp. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verf. ii. 339.
[707] Comp. Menke’s Bibel-Atlas, map v.
[708] According to Tab. Peuting. Gophna stood on the road loading from Jerusalem to Neapolis (Sichem), sixteen miles to the north of the forever, or according to Euseb. Onomast. fifteen miles (ed. Lagarde, p. 300: Γοφνά … ἀπέχουσα Αἰλίας σημείοις ιεʹ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν εἰς Νεάπολιν ἄγουσαν). It was a place of some importance in the time of Cassius, who sold its inhabitants as slaves (Antt. xiv. 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 11. 2). The Γοφνιτικὴ τοπαρχία is also mentioned by Josephus elsewhere (Bell. Jud. i. 1. 5, ii 20. 4, iv. 9. 9). Comp. besides, Bell. Jud. v. 2. 1, vi. 2. 2. In Ptolemaeus v. 16. 7, it occurs in the form of Γοῦφνα, Hebrew גופנא (Neubauer, Géogr, du Talmud, p. 157 ff.), the modern form being Dschifna, Jufna. See in general, Raumer’s Pal. p. 199; Robinson’s Palaest. ii. 236, 264; Guérin’s Judée, iii. pp. 28-32. The Surrey of Western Palatine, Memoirs by Conder, and Kitchener, ii. pp. 294, 323, and the accompanying maps, No. xiv.
[709] Akrabatta, still farther north than Gophna and nine miles to the south-east of Neapolis = Sichem (Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lag. p. 214: Ἀκραββείν … κώμη δὲ ἔστιν μόγις διεστῶσα Νέας πόλεως σημείοις θʹ). According to Mishna, Maaser sheni v. 2, עקרבת was a day’s journey to the north of Jerusalem, precisely the same distance as Lydda was to the west of it, which is as near the mark as can be. The Ἀκραβατηνὴ τοπαρχία is also of frequent occurrence elsewhere in Josephus and Eusebius (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 4, 20. 4, 22. 2, iii 3. 4, iv. 9. 3-4 and 9. Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lag. pp. 214, 255, 267, 294, 295). The place is known at the present day as Akrabeh. See in general, Raumer’s Pal. p. 170. Robinson’s Palestine, iii. pp. 296, 297. Guérin’s Samarie, ii. 3-5. The Survey, etc., Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. pp. 386, 389 f.; and the accompanying map, No. xv. Beware of confounding this with a range of hills of the same name in the south of Judaea, Numbers 34:4; Joshua 15:3; Judges 1:36; Euseb. Onomast. p. 214; and from which the Ἀκραβαττίνη mentioned in the first Book of the Maccabees (1Ma_5:3 = Joseph. Antt. xii. 8. 1) derives its name.
[710] Thamna is undoubtedly the ancient תִּמְנַת־סֶרַח or תִּמְנַת־חֶרֶס in Mount Ephraim where Joshua was buried (Joshua 19:50; Joshua 24:30; Judges 2:9). Eusebius frequently mentions the place as being a very large village within the district of Diospolis = Lydda (see especially, p. 260, ed. Lag.: Θαμνά … διαμένει κώμη μεγάλη ἐν ὁρίοις Διοσπόλεως), and remarks that, in his day, people were shown Joshua’s tomb at a spot near by (p. 246: δείκνυται δὲ ἐπίσημον εἰς ἔτι νῦν αὐτοῦ τὸ μνῆμα πλησίον Θαμνὰ κώμης. Ibid. p. 261: Θαμναθσαρά … αὕτη ἐστὶ Θαμνά … ἐν ᾗ εἰς ἔτι νῦν δείκνυται τὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μνῆμα). The place still exists, though only as a heap of ruins, and is known by the name of Tibneh, standing in a tolerably straight line between Akrabeh and Lydda, as was to be expected from the order of the toparchies as given by Josephus. Among the important tombs still to be seen at this place Guérin believes that he has actually discovered that of Joshua. See in general, Raumer’s Pal. p. 165 f. De Saulcy’s Voyage en Terre Sainte (1865), ii. 233 f. Guérin’s Samarie, ii. pp. 89-104. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, etc., ii. 299 f., 274-378, with the accompanying map, No. xiv. Mühlau in Riehm’s Wörterb. p. 1668. In the time of Cassius, Thamna shared the same fate as Gophna (Antt. xiv. 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 11. 2). The toparchy of Thamna is also mentioned elsewhere by Josephus and Eusebius (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4, iv. 8. 1. Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lagarde, pp. 219, 239). Comp. also Ptolem. v. 16. 8. We must take care to distinguish between our Thamna and another תִּמְנָה or תִּמְנָתָה situated on the border between the tribe of Dan and Judah to the west of Jerusalem and in the direction of Ashdod. This one is also existing in the present day, and is likewise known under the name of Tibneh (Joshua 15:10; Joshua 19:43; Judges 14:1 ff.; 2 Chronicles 28:18). And lastly, from this we must further distinguish a third one situated in the hill country of Judah (Genesis 38:12-14; Joshua 15:57). Which Θαμναθά is meant in 1Ma_9:50 it is impossible to determine with any certainty. See in general, Raumer, p. 224. Robinson’s Pal. ii. pp. 239, 240. Guérin’s Judée, ii. 30 f. The Survey. etc., Memoirs, ii. 417, maps, No. xvi.
[711] Lydda (Hebr. לדֹ, afterwards Diospolis), the well-known town on the road from Joppa to Jerusalem, is also mentioned (Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4) as one of the toparchies of Judaea. On one occasion Josephus characterizes it as κώμη … πόλεως τὸ μέγεθος οὐκ ἀποδέουσα (Antt. xx. 6. 2). For its history, comp. especially 1Ma_11:34; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 6, 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 11. 2, ii. 19. 1, iv. 8. 1.
[712] Emmaus or Ammaus, the Nicopolis of later times, is still existing under the name of Amŵs, and is situated to the south by south-east of Lydda. Owing to the circumstance of its standing just at the foot of the mountain range it was a place of some military importance, and is frequently mentioned as such as early as the time of the Maccabees (1Ma_3:40; 1Ma_3:57; 1Ma_4:3; 1Ma_9:50). For its later history, see especially Antt. xiv. 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 11. 2; Antt. xvii. 10. 9; Bell. Jud. ii. 5. 1, iv. 8. 1. It is also mentioned as one of the Jewish toparchies in Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4. In Rabbinical Hebrew it is called אמאום (Mishna, Arachin ii. 4; Kerithoth iii. 7. Lightfoot, Chorographica Lucae praemissa, c. 4, Opp. ii. 479 f. Neubauer’s Géogr. du Talmud, pp. 100-102); it also occurs in Ptolemaeus, v. 16. 7, as Ἐμμαοῦς. Whether it is the same Emmaus that is intended in Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6 and Luke 24:13, is open to question. Comp. in general, Reland’s Palaestina, pp. 758-760. Raumer, p. 187 f. Winer’s Realwörterb. under this word. Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. iii. 778 f. Robinson’s Palestine, iii. pp. 146-151. Kuhn, Die städtische u. bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 356 f. Sepp’s Jerusalem, 2nd ed. i. 40 ff. Guérin’s Judée, i. 293-308. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, etc., iii. 14, 36 ff., 63-81, and the maps, No. xvii.
[713] According to Bell. Jud. iv. 8. 1, Bethleptepha stood between Emmaus and Idumaea, and should therefore be inserted here instead of Pella, as erroneously given in the text of Josephus.
[714] Idumaea had been Judaized by John Hyreanus (Antt. xiii. 9. 1, xv, 7, 9. Bell. Jud. i. 2. 6). Hence it was that the Idumaeans took part in the Jewish insurrection as though they too had been Jews (Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 4). Elsewhere, comp. especially Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4, iv. 8. 1.
[715] Engaddi, the ancient עֵין נֶּדִי (Joshua 15:62; 1 Samuel 24:1 ff.; Ezekiel 47:10; Son_1:14; 2 Chronicles 20:2), the existence of which on the western shore of the Dead Sea is vouched for by both Josephus and Eusebius (Joseph. Antt. ix. 1. 2: Ἐγγαδδὶ πόλιν κειμένην πρὸς τῇ Ἀσφαλτίτιδι λίμνῃ. Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 254: καὶ νῦν ἐστὶ κώμη μεγίστη Ἰουδαίων Ἐγγαδδὶ παρακειμένη τῇ νεκρᾷ θαλάσσῃ). In Bell. Jud. iv. 7. 2, Josephus calls it a πολίχνη. In Ptolemaeus, v. 16. 8, it occurs as Ἐγγάδδα. It is known in the present day as Ain Dschidi. See in general, Winer’s Realwörterb. under the word. Raumer, 188 f. Robinson’s Palestine, i. pp. 500-508. Neubauer’s Géogr. du Talmud, p. 160. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, etc., iii. pp. 384-386, 387, and the accompanying maps, No. xxii.
[716] Herodeion is the important fortress built by Herod the Great in the south of Judaea, some sixty stadia from Jerusalem (Antt. xiv. 13. 9, xv. 9. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 13. 8, 21. 10), the identity of which, with the modern “Frankenberge” standing to the south-east of Bethlehem, may now be looked upon as generally admitted. Comp. above, § 15.
[717] Jericho, the well-known city of that name near to the Jordan, was the most important town in the east of Judaea, and for this reason it too was chosen by Gabinius as the seat of one of the five Jewish courts or Sanhedrims (Antt. xiv. 5. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 5). It is also mentioned U being one of the districts of Judaea in Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4. Besides this, comp. especially Bell. Jud. iv. 8. 2, 9. 1.
[718] On the division of the Roman provinces into administrative districts, see in general Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. i. (2nd ed. 1881) p. 500 f.
[719] The names of several toparchies (Ἀκραβαττηνή, Θαμνιτική) were no doubt still retained in Eusebius’ day, but the constitution itself had been essentially altered by the establishment of new, independent civitates such as Diospolis, Nicopolis and others. The result of this was that Thamna, for example, ceased to be any longer the capital of a toparchy, but was now reduced to the position of a κώμη μεγάλη ἐν ὁρίοις Διοσπόλεως (see above, note 438), and so became subordinate to what was formerly known as Lydda.
[720] Bell. Jud. iv. 8. 1.
[721] Lydda (Hebr. לדֹ, afterwards Diospolis), the well-known town on the road from Joppa to Jerusalem, is also mentioned (Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4) as one of the toparchies of Judaea. On one occasion Josephus characterizes it as κώμη … πόλεως τὸ μέγεθος οὐκ ἀποδέουσα (Antt. xx. 6. 2). For its history, comp. especially 1Ma_11:34; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 6, 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 11. 2, ii. 19. 1, iv. 8. 1.
[722] The term κωμόπολις is also to be met with occasionally in Strabo and the Byzantine writers; consult the Lexicons and Wetzstein’s Nov. Test., note on Mark 1:38.
[723] Corp. Inscr. Graec. No. 4551 = Le Bas et Waddington, Inscr. t. iii. No. 2524. The inscription dates from the time of Alexander Severus (222-235 A.D.). On Phaena, see Raumer’s Pal. p. 254 f. Porter’s Five Years in Damascus, ii. 244. Kuhn, ii. 384.
[724] e Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2396.
[725] Epiphanius, Anacephal. p. 145.
There was only one town in Judaea proper that, according to Romano-Hellenistic ideas, enjoyed at the same time the rank of a πόλις, and that was Jerusalem. To this latter all the rest of Judaea was subordinate, so that it ruled over it (Judaea) ὡς βασίλειον (see note [726] Consequently its relation to Judaea was similar to that in which the Hellenistic cities stood to their respective districts.[727] This among other things is implied in the style of address that is made use of in the imperial edicts issued to the Jews and which run thus: Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν ἄρχουσι βουλῇ δήμῳ, Ἰουδαίων παντὶ ἔθνει, terms precisely similar to those employed in the edicts addressed to the Hellenistic communes where, in like manner, the city with its council ruled over, and therefore was regarded as representing the whole district to which it belonged.[728] It is further probable that the council (the Sanhedrim) of Jerusalem was also responsible for the collection of the taxes throughout the whole of Judaea.[729] Again there is a reminiscence of the circumstance of the “elders” exercising authority over the whole of Judaea still preserved to us in the Mishna.[730] But since the death of Herod the Great at least, the civil jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem was entirely restricted to Judaea proper. Ever since then, Galilee and Peraea were, as regards their political relations, entirely severed from Judaea, or at all events formed independent spheres of administration, as has been pointed out above with special reference to Galilee. And least of all can we venture to make use of the circumstance that the rebellion in Galilee was directed from Jerusalem as an argument to show, that in times of peace as well, Galilee was under the jurisdiction of the supreme court of the Sanhedrim. For the circumstances here in question are obviously of an exceptional character. It was only in earlier days, and particularly during the Asmonaean period, that the whole land of Judaea could be said to have been really one in a political sense as well (comp. below, chap. iii.). As the council of Jerusalem could scarcely have been able to attend to the administration of justice in all its details, it is antecedently probable that, besides the supreme Sanhedrim, there would be one or more inferior tribunals in Jerusalem. Of this too the Mishna has preserved a reminiscence, though it happens to be a somewhat confused one.[731]
[726] Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 5: μερίζεται δὲ εἰς ἕνδεκα κληρουχίας, ὧν ἄρχει μὲν ὡς βασίλειον τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα, προανίσχουσα τῆς περιοίκου πάσης ὥσπερ ἡ κεφαλὴ σώματος, αἱ λοιπαὶ δὲ μετʼ αὐτὴν διῄρηνται τὰς τοπαρχίας. Γόφνα δευτέρα, καὶ μετʼ αὐτὴν Ἀκραβαττά, Θαμνὰ πρὸς ταύταις καὶ Λύδδα καὶ Ἀμμαοῦς καὶ Πέλλη καὶ Ἰδουμαία καὶ Ἐγγαδδαὶ καὶ Ἡρώδειον καὶ Ἱεριχοῦς.
[727] Comp. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 342-345.
[728] Antt. xx. 1. 2. Comp. besides for similar styles of address as employed in edicts, Antt. xiv. 10 (Σιδωνίων ἄρχουσι βουλῇ δήμῳ, Ἐφεσίων βουλῇ καὶ ἄρχουσι καὶ δῄμῳ, and such like).
[729] When, after the first throes of the insurrection, it was resolved to return, for a moment, to a peaceful attitude, the magistrates and members of the council of Jerusalem distributed themselves over the villages for the purpose of collecting the arrears of the tribute (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1: εἰς δὲ τὰς κώμας οἵ τε ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ βουλευταὶ μερισθέντες τοὺς φόρους συνέλεγον). The sums from the different quarters were speedily gathered together and were found to amount in all to forty talents. But, immediately thereafter, Agrippa sent the ἄρχοντες and δυνατοί to Caesarea to Florus with the request that be would appoint from among them tribute collectors for the country (ibid. ἵνα ἐκεῖνος ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποδείξῃ τοὺς τὴν χώραν φορολογήσοντας). Now, seeing that this took place after the taxes of the district, and therefore, of course, of the toparchy of Jerusalem, had been already collected, it follows that, by the term χώρα, the whole of Judaea is to be understood. It was therefore for the whole of this province that the collectors were to be appointed from among the ἄρχοντες and δυνατοί of Jerusalem. For the Roman practice of employing city councils as a medium for collecting the taxes, comp. in general, Marquardt, i. 501.
[730] Taanith iii. 6: “On one occasion the elders went from Jerusalem to visit their towns (ירדו זקנים מירושלים לעריהם) and appointed fasts, because they found in Ascalon (באשקלון) a patch of blighted corn about the size of the mouth of an oven, etc.” As Ascalon never belonged to the province of Judaea, this notice is in itself unhistorical, though it is correct in so far as it contains a reminiscence of the fact, that at one time the towns of Judaea were subject to the authority of the “elders” of Jerusalem.
[731] Sanhedrin xi. 2: “There were three courts of justice (בתי דינין) in Jerusalem. One held its sittings at the entrance to the temple mount (על פתח הר הבית), another at the entrance to the court of the temple (על פתח העזרה), and the third in the square chamber (בלשכת הגזית). The parties came with their causes to the one that sat at the entrance to the temple mount, and the presiding judge said: ‘Thus have I and thus have my colleagues pronounced; thus have I and thus have my colleagues resolved.’ If then the court had a tradition applicable to the case in question it gave a decision. But if not, the parties went to the tribunal at the entrance to the court of the temple and there restated their case. If this one again had a tradition bearing upon the case, it gave a decision. But if not, then the parties along with the members of those courts appeared before the supreme court in the square chamber, the fountainhead of law for the whole of Israel.” The schematism with reference to the places at which the courts were held, is of itself sufficient to show that we are not here dealing with an authentic historical tradition.