II. Constitution Of The Jewish Communities

II. CONSTITUTION OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES
1. Their Internal Organization[2121]
[2121] For this comp. Rhenferd, De arabarcha vel ethnarcha Judaeorum (Rhenferdii opera philologica, 1722, pp. 584-613; also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxiv.). Wesseling, Diatribe de Judaeorum archontibus ad inscriptionem Berenicensem, Traj. ad Rhen. 1738 (also in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xxiv.). Wesseling’s dissertation continues to be of value even in the present day.
There was of course but one way by which those of the Jewish people that were scattered over the whole earth could possibly maintain their native religion and usages, and that was by organizing themselves into independent communities, within which they might cherish the faith and practise the observances of their fathers in a foreign land and in the heart of the Gentile world, just as though they were living in the Holy Land itself. And that this is what, as a rule, they were in the habit of doing, and that from an early period, at all events from the commencement of the Hellenistic era, it is impossible to doubt. The nature of the organization may have varied according to time and place, and above all in so far as those communities had sometimes the character of purely private associations, while at others they were to a greater or less extent in the enjoyment of political privileges; but, be this as it may, it is certain that wherever any considerable number of Jews happened to be living together, there an independent organization was always to be met with as well.
It is with regard to the eastern diaspora that our information on this point is most scanty; nay, so far as the diaspora dwelling in the countries bordering on the Euphrates is concerned we have none at all, at least none dating farther back than Talmudic times. Nor are matters much better as regards Asia Minor and Syria. The most noteworthy item of information that can be gleaned in connection with these latter is the incidental reference on one occasion to an ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων in Antioch.[2122]
[2122] Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3. Seeing that ἄρχων is without the article, it should be rendered not “the ἄρχων,” but “an ἄρχων,” i.e. one of the Jewish authorities.
In Alexandria, where the Jews formed a large portion of the entire population, their community enjoyed very extensive political privileges. According to Strabo, they were presided over by an ἐθνάρχης, “who governs the people and administers justice among them, and sees that they fulfil their obligations and obey orders just like the archon of an independent city.”[2123] Consequently, although the Jews who lived here enjoyed the rights of citizenship (see No. 3 below), they nevertheless formed an independent municipal community within or co-ordinate with the rest of the city, precisely as in the case of Cyrene. This independent position they also succeeded in maintaining in imperial times, and that very much owing to the circumstance that Alexandria, unlike almost all other Hellenistic towns, had no civic council.[2124] The constitution of the Jewish community in Alexandria would seem to have undergone a certain change in the time of Augustus. At least Philo informs us that, after the death of the γενάρχης, Augustus instituted a γερουσία, to which the direction of Jewish affairs was entrusted.[2125] No doubt this appears to be at variance with the fact that in an edict of Claudius it is stated, that after the death of the ἐθνάρχης Augustus did not forbid the further appointment of ethnarchs.[2126] But probably this latter is only a repetition in a less accurate form of the fact mentioned by Philo, all that Claudius meant to say being simply this, that the Jews also continued as before to be governed by their own rulers (ἐθνάρχαι). The more accurate version of the matter is that of Philo, who states that ever since the time of Augustus the single ἐθνάρχης had been superseded by a γερουσία, over which a certain number of ἄρχοντες presided. Both the γερουσία and the ἄρχοντες are frequently mentioned by this writer.[2127] These latter are identical with the πρωτεύοντες τῆς γερουσίας that occur in Josephus.[2128] As bearing on the question of the number of members composing the γερουσία, we may mention the fact that on one occasion Flaccus caused thirty-eight of them to be dragged into the theatre and there scourged.[2129] It is a very common error to identify the Jewish ethnarch with the Egyptian alabarch. The office of this latter was of a purely civil character, but of course it was often held by distinguished Jews (see No. 3 below).
[2123] Strabo as quoted by Josephus, Antt. xiv. 7. 2: καθίσταται δὲ καὶ ἐθνάρχης αὐτῶν, ὅς διοικεῖ τε τὸ ἔθνος καὶ διαιτᾷ κρίσεις καὶ συμβολαίων ἐπιμελεῖται καὶ προσταγμάτων, ὡς ἂν πολιτείας ἄρχων αὐτοτελοῦς.
[2124] Spartian. Severus, chap. xvii. (in the Scriptures Historiae Augustae, ed. Peter, 1865). Dio Cass. li. 17. On the constitution of Alexandria generally, comp. Strabo, xvii. p. 797. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. 476 sqq. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 451 sqq. Lumbroso, Recherches sur l’économie politique de l’Egypte sous les Lagides (Turin 1870), p. 212 sqq.
[2125] Philo, In Flaccum, § 10, Mang. ii. 527 sq.: τῆς ἡμετέρας γερουσίας, ην ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης Σεβαστὸς ἐπιμελησομένην τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν εἵλετο μετὰ τὴν τοῦ γενάρχου τελευτὴν διὰ τῶν πρὸς Μάγνον Μάξιμον ἐντολῶν, μέλλοντα πάλιν ἐπʼ Αἰγύπτου καὶ τῆς χώρας ἐπιτροπεύειν.
[2126] Joseph. Antt. xix. 5. 2: τελευτήσαντος τοῦ Ἰουδαίων ἐθνάρχου τὸν Σεβαστὸν μὴ κεκωλυκέναι ἐθνάρχας γίνεσθαι.
[2127] Philo, In Flaccum, § 10, Mang. ii. 528: τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γερουσίας τρεῖς ἄνδρες. Ibid.: μεταπεμψαμένῳ πρότερον τοὺς ἡμετέρους ἄρχοντας. Ibid. p. 528 sq.: τοὺς ἄρχοντας, τὴν γερουσίαν. Ibid. § 14, p. 534: τῶν μὲν ἀρχόντων.
[2128] Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 10. 1.
[2129] Philo, In Flaccum, § 10, Mang. ii. 527 sq.
That the Jews living in Cyrene in like manner formed a separate political community is evident from the notice of Strabo already referred to, from which we learn that the inhabitants of this town were divided into four classes: (1) citizens; (2) tillers of the ground; (3) settlers; and (4) Jews.[2130] But notwithstanding this separate existence the Jews enjoyed equality of civic rights (ἰσονομία).[2131]
[2130] Strabo as quoted by Josephus, Antt. xiv. 7. 2.
[2131] Joseph. Antt. xvi. 6. 1: τῶν μὲν πρότερον βασιλέων ἰσονομίαν αὐτοῖς παρεσχημένων. Comp. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. 463.
A very important light is thrown upon the constitution of the Jewish communities of the diaspora by a Jewish inscription found in Berenice, a town in Cyrenaica, and, according to Böckh’s calculation, dating from the year 13 B.C.[2132] From that inscription we find that the Jews of Berenice formed a distinct πολίτευμα by themselves (lin. 17 f., 21 f.) with nine (and these of course Jewish) archons at its head (lin. 2-8, 21-25).
[2132] Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. iii. No. 5361:
[Ἔ]τους ν̅ε̅ Φαῶφ κ̅ε̅, ἐπὶ συλλόγου τῆς σκηνο.
πηγίας, ἐπὶ ἀρχόντων Κλεάνδρου τοῦ
Στρατονίκου, Εὐφράνορος τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος,
Σωσιγένους τοῦ Σωσίππου, Ἀνδρομάχου
5 τοῦ Ἀνδρομάχου, Μάρκου Λαιλίου Ὀνασίωνος
τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου, Φιλωνίδου τοῦ Ἀγήμονος,
Αὐτοκλέους τοῦ Ζήνωνος, Σωνίκου
τοῦ Θεοδότου, Ἰωσήπου τοῦ Στράτωνος·
Ἐπεὶ Μάρκος Τίττιος Σέξτου υἱὸς Αἰμιλίᾳ
10 ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός, παραγ[ε]νηθεὶς εἰς
τὴν ἐπαρχείαν ἐπὶ δημοσίων πραγμάτων τήν
τε προστασίαν αὐτῶν ἐποιήσατο φιλανθρώπως
καὶ καλῶς ἔν τε τῇ ἀναστροφῇ ἡσύχιον
ἦθος ἐνδ[ε]ικνύμενος ἀεὶ διατελῶν τυγχάνει,
15 οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐν τούτοις ἀβαρῆ ἑαυτὸν παρέσχηται,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς κατʼ ἰδίαν ἐντυγχάνουσι
τῶν πολιτῶν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ πολιτεύματος
ἡμῶν Ἰουδαίοις καὶ κοινῇ καὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν
εὔχρηστον προσστασίαν ποιούμενος οὐ διαλείπει
20 τῆς ἰδίας καλοκἀγαθίας ἄξια πράσσων
ὧν χάριν ἔδοξε τοῖς ἄρχουσι καὶ τῷ πολιτεύματι
τῶν ἐν Βερενίκῃ Ἰουδαίων ἐπαινέσαι τε αὐτὸν
καὶ στεφανοῦν ὀνομαστὶ καθʼ ἑκάστην
σύνοδον καὶ νουμηνίαν στεφάνῳ ἐλαϊνῳ καὶ
25 λημνίσκῳ· τοὺς δὲ ἄρχοντας ἀναγράψαι τὸ
ψήφισμα εἰς στήλην λίθου Παρίου καὶ θεῖναι εἰς
τὸν ἐπισημότατον τόπον τοῦ ἀμφιθεάτρου.
Λευκαὶ πᾶσαι.
But it is with regard to the constitution of the Jewish communities of Rome and of Italy generally that we are most thoroughly informed, and that owing to the great amount of light thrown on the subject by the large number of Jewish epitaphs that have been found in the cemeteries of Rome and Venosa.[2133] These further show us, among other things, that here the same arrangements continued to subsist for centuries running without any material alteration. For the inscriptions of Venosa, dating from the sixth century after Christ, still present us with substantially the same picture as those of Rome, the oldest of which probably belong to one of the earliest centuries of our era. From the Roman inscriptions we gather, in the first place, that the Jews living in Rome were divided into a large number of separate and independently organized communities (συναγωγαί), each having its own synagogue, gerousia, and public officials. Of the existence of anything in the shape of a corporate union of the whole Jews of Rome under one γερουσία there is no trace whatever. While therefore the Jews of Alexandria formed a great political corporation, those of Rome had to be contented with the more modest position of separate religious societies. Those various communities called themselves by special names, of which the following are mentioned on the inscriptions: (1) a συναγωγὴ Αὐγουστησίων;[2134] (2) a συναγωγὴ Ἀγριππησίων;[2135] (3) a synagoga Bolumni (l. Volumni).[2136] These three took their names from certain distinguished personages. And seeing that along with Αὐγουστήσιοι we also meet with Ἀγριππήσιοι, there can hardly be a doubt that the former derived their name from the first Augustus, while the latter derived theirs from his friend and adviser M. Agrippa. The designation may be accounted for either by the fact that Augustus and Agrippa were patrons, the one of the one community and the other of the other, or from the circumstance that those communities were for the most part composed of slaves and freedmen of Augustus on the one hand, or of Agrippa on the other (comp. οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας, Php_4:22). Other communities again took their names from the particular quarter of the city in which their members happened to reside, as, for example, (4) the Καμπήσιοι from the Campus Martins,[2137] and (5) the Σιβουρήσιοι from the Subura, one of the busiest quarters of ancient Rome, and a centre of trade and industry.[2138] Besides these we also hear (b) of a συναγωγὴ Αἰβρέων, probably that of such of the Jews as spoke Hebrew, in contradistinction to those of them who had ceased to speak it,[2139] and (7) a συναγωγὴ Ἐλαίας, so called from the symbol of the olive.[2140] Of the officials who are mentioned on those inscriptions we would notice above all the γερουσιάρχης and the ἄρχοντες. (1) A γερουσιάρχης occurs not only upon the Roman inscriptions,[2141] but likewise on those at Venosa[2142] and elsewhere.[2143] This title cannot have been intended to refer to any other than the president or head of the γερουσία. But from the designation γερουσιάρχης συναγωγῆς Αὐγουστησίων it is evident, as has been already pointed out above, that each of the Roman communities had its own γερουσία, with its own officials. In view of this fact it is highly instructive to find, that upon the Roman inscriptions we nowhere meet with the title πρεσβύτερος (or any other like it, by which to denote the member of the γερουσία as such; for the ἄρχοντες were certainly not ordinary members, but the committee of the γερουσία). This fact can only be accounted for from the circumstance that it is only the offices properly so called that are mentioned by name upon the epitaphs, whereas the “elders” were not looked upon as officials in the technical sense of the word. They were the representatives and advisers of their community, but not officials with specific functions entrusted to them. (2) The title ἄρχων is of very frequent occurrence in the Roman inscriptions.[2144] We have already met with it elsewhere, viz. in Antioch, Alexandria, and Berenice. It also occurs sometimes upon epitaphs found outside of Rome,[2145] and we may add that Tertullian classes the priest, Levite, and archon together as Jewish offcials.[2146] According to all analogy elsewhere (comp. especially Alexandria and Berenice) it may be taken for granted, in the case of the Roman communities as well, that each of them would have several ἄρχοντες, who would act as the managing committee of the γερουσία. It would appear from the title δὶς ἄρχων, which is repeatedly met with, that the archons were appointed for a definite period;[2147] and in a Homilia in S. Johannis Natalem, ascribed to Chrysostom, and which has specially in view the state of matters in Italy during the imperial times, we are expressly informed that the archons were always elected in September, the beginning of the civil year of the Jews. The following are the ipsissima verba of this interesting passage:[2148] Inter haec intuendae sunt temporum qualitates et gesta morum; et primum perfidia Judaeorum, qui semper in Deum et in Mosem contumaces exstiterunt, qui cum a Deo secundum Mosem initium anni mensem Martium acceperint, illi dictum pravitatis sive superbiae exercentes mensem Septembrem, ipsum novum annum nuncupant, quo et mense magistrates sibi designant, quos Archontas vocant. But besides the appointments for a definite period, there seem also to have been cases in which the appointment was for life. At least it is probable that the enigmatical title διὰ βίου, which is repeatedly met with, is to be understood as referring to archons who were elected for life.[2149]
[2133] For what follows, comp. Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit nach den Inschriften dargestellt, Leipzig 1879. The texts of the majority of the inscriptions to which reference is made are also reproduced in an appendix to this work.
[2134] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9902 = Fiorelli, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Inscrizioni Latine, n. 1956: γερουσιάρχης συναγωγῆς Αὐγοστησίων (sic). Corp. Inscr. Gr. 9903 = Fiorelli, Catalogo, n. 1960: ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν Αὐγουστησίων. Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 3222: Marcus Cuyntus Alexus grammateus ego (l. ἐκ) ton Augustasion mellarcon eccion (l. ἐκ τῶν) Augustesion.
[2135] Corp. Iscr. Graec. 9907.
[2136] Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 2522: mater synagogarum Campi et Bolumni.
[2137] Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9905, 9906 (for more accurate texts according to Garrucci, see my work, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden, Appendix, Nos. 4 and 5). Orelli, 2522. Garrticci, Dissertazioni, ii. 161, n. 10.
[2138] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 6447 = Fiorelli, Catalogo, n. 1954: Νεικοδημος ὁ ἀρχων Σιβουρησιων. On the Subura, see Pauly’e Real-Enc. der class. Alterthumswissensch. vi. 1. 526. At the commencement of the imperial age it was of course forbidden to celebrate any foreign sacra in Rome proper, i.e. within the pomaerium (see Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 1878, p. 35). But from the second century it was no longer so. Since then it was quite permissible to have Jewish synagogues also within the pomaerium.
[2139] Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9909.
[2140] Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9904. De Rossi, Bullettino, v. 1867, p. 16. For the name, comp. also § 27, p. 74.
[2141] Corp. Inter. Graec. n. 9902 = Fiorelli, Catal. n. 1956: Κυντιανὸς γερουσιάρχης συναγωγῆς Αὐγοστησίων. Garrucci, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei, p. 51: Ἀστερίῳ γιερουσάρχῃ (sic). Ibid. p. 62: Οὐρσακίου ἀπὸ Ἀκουιλείας γερουσιάρχου. Ibid. p. 96: Πανχάρις γερουσιάρχης. Garrucci, Dissertazioni, ii. 183, n. 27: Θαιόφιλ[ος γερο] υσιάρχης.
[2142] Ascoli, Inscrizioni, p. 55, n. 10 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. 6213 = Lenormant, Revue des études juives, vol. vi. n. 12, p. 204: Φαυστινος γερουσιάρχον ἀρχίατρος. Ascoli, p. 58, n. 15 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 6221: filius Viti ierusiarcontis. Observe in both instances the form γερουσιάρχων, whereas on the Roman inscriptions it is always γερουσιάρχης that is used.
[2143] Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 2555 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 1893 (at Murano, near Naples): Ti. Claudius Philippus dia viu et gerusiarches.
[2144] Corp. Inscr. Graec. nn. 9906, 6447, 6337. Garrucci, Cimitero, pp. 35, 51, 61, 67. Ibid. Dissertazioni, ii. 158, n. 4, 164, 15, 16, 17, 18. De Rossi, Bullettino, v. 16. For more on this point, see my work, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom. p. 20 ff.
[2145] De Bossi, Bullettino, iv. 40: Κλαύδιος Ἰωσῆς ἄρχων (at Porto, near Rome). Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 3657 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 3905: Alfius Juda arcon arcosynagogus (at Capua).
[2146] Tertullian, De corona, chap. ix.: Quis denique patriarches, quis prophetes, quis levites aut sacerdos aut archon, quis vel postea apostolus aut evangelizator aut episcopus invenitur coronatus?
[2147] Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9910 (for a facsimile of which see Engeström, Om Judarne i Rom, 1876, as a supplement): Σαββάτις δὶς ἄρχων. Garrucci, Cimitero, p. 47: Μάρων βʹ ἄρχ(ων).
[2148] This homily (according to Wesseling, De Julaeorum archontibus, chap. x.) is to be found in Chrysostomi Opp. vol. ii. ed. Paris 1687. As I have no means of consulting this edition, I quote the passage as given by Wesseling.
[2149] Corp. Inter. Graec. 9903 = Fiorelli, Catalogo, 1960: Δατίβου τοῦ ζὰ (= διὰ) βίου ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν Αὐγουστησίων. Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9907: Ζώσιμος διὰ βίου συναγωγῆς Ἀγριππησίων. Garrucci, Dissertazioni ii. 184, n. 29: Αιλια Πατρικια Τουλλιο Ειρηναιο κονιουγι βενεμερεντι φηκιτ διαβιο. Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. 2555 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 1893: Ti Claudius Philippus dia viu et gerusiarches. Mommsen, IRN. 7190 = Fiorelli, Catalogo, 1962: Tettius Rufinus Melitius vicxit annis LXXXV. iabius. Ascoli, Inscrizioni, p. 51, n. 2 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 6208: Ταφος Ανα διαβιου. Ascoli has advanced certain objections to the above-mentioned explanation at p. 112 of his Inscrizioni. Certainly in the case of some of those inscriptions (where the expression διὰ βίου comes in at the end) the correctness of this explanation may be questioned. In any case the inscription: εὐτιχῖτε, ὁ γάμος διὰ βίου, discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in Emmaus = Nicopolis in Palestine, is not pertinent to the matter now in hand (Archives des missions scientifiques, 3rd series, vol. ix. 1882, pp. 307-310; also in The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, iii. 81). This seems to have been merely the expression of some one’s good wishes on the occasion of a marriage: “May the union last διὰ βίου.”
As in Palestine so also in Rome and Italy, and in fact through the diaspora generally, we meet with the office of the ἀρχισυνάγωγος.[2150] We have already (§ 27, p. 64) said all that is necessary to say regarding the difference between this office and that of the γερουσιάρχης and the ἄρχοντες. The archisynagogus is not simply the president of the community, but he is entrusted with the special task of conducting and supervising the meetings for religious purposes. Of course he may have been chosen from among the ἄρχοντες, so that the same person might thus be an archon and an archisynagogus at one and the same time. But at the inscriptions plainly show, the two offices were in thers selves quite distinct. On the later use of the title ἀρχισυνάγωγος by women and children, and that merely as a title and nothing more, see above, p. 65. Besides the archisynagogus there was also another who had certain functions to discharge in connection with the meetings for public worship, and that was the synagogue officer (ὑπηρέτης), an official who is also once mentioned upon a Roman inscription.[2151] Lastly, the titles pater synagogae and mater synagogae are pretty often met with on the inscriptions.[2152] The circumstance of the title occurring also in this last-mentioned form should of itself render it probable that it was not intended to denote by it an office in the proper sense of the word, but simply an honourable position in the community. It was one that was applied, above all, to aged members, and to such of them as the community was indebted to for some good service or other.[2153]
[2150] In Rome, Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9906: Ἰουλιανοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγον. Garrucci, Cimitero, p. 67: Stafulo arconti et archisynagogo. In Capua, Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. 3657 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 3905: Alflus Juda arcon arcosynagogus. In Venosa, Ascoli, Inscrizioni, p. 49, not. 1 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 6201: Ταφος Καλλιστου νιπιου ἄρχοσσιναγωγου (sic). Ascoli, p. 52, n. 4 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 6232 = Lenormant, Revue des études juives, vol. vi. n. 12, p. 203: Ταφως Ασηλονυα ἀρχοσηνωγουγου. Ascoli, p. 57, n. 12 = CIL, vol. ix. n. 6205 = Lenormant, p. 204: Ταφως Ἰοσηφ ἀρχησυναγωγως υἱως Ἰωσηφ ἀρχησυναγογου. For the rest of the material, see § 27, p. 63.
[2151] Garrucci, Dissertazioni, ii. 166, n. 22: Φλάβιος Ἰουλιανὸς ὑπηρέτης.
[2152] πατὴρ συναγωγῆς, Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9904, 9905, 9908, 9909. Garrucci, Cimitero, p. 52. Ibid. Dissertazioni, ii. 161, n. 10. Pater sinagogae, Orelli-Henzen, Inscr. Lat. n. 6145 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. viii. n. 8499. Codex Theodosianus (ed. Haenel), xvi. 8. 4: Hiereos et archisyna-gogos et patres synagogarum et ceteros, qui synagogis deserviunt. Pater (without anything more), Garrucci, Dissertazioni, ii. 164, n. 18. Ascoli, p. 58, n. 15 = Corp. Inter. Lat. vol. ix. n. 6221. Ascoli, p. 61, n. 19 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 648 and 6220 = Lenormant, p. 205 sq. Mater synagogae, Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. v. n. 4411. Orelli, 2522.
[2153] Comp. the ages given in Corp. Inser. Graec. 9904: Πανχάριος πατὴρ συναγωγῆς Ἐλαίας ἐτῶν ἑκατὼν (sic) δέκα. Orelli 2522, Beturia Paulini … quae bixit an. LXXXVI. meses VI.… mater synagogarum Campi et Bolumni.
2. Their Political Position
The Jewish communities are by no means a unique phenomenon within the circle of the Graeco-Roman world. In the Hellenistic period all the larger seaports of the Mediterranean came to be closely connected with each other in consequence of the brisk trade that was carried on between them, the result of which was that not only Jews, but also Phoenicians, Syrians, Egyptians and inhabitants of Asia Minor settled in larger or smaller numbers in many of the principal towns of Greece and Italy. All the settlers belonging to the same nation were naturally led by a community of temporal and spiritual interests, above all by their common worship, to band themselves together for, mutual help, and consequently to unite themselves under a common organization. Wherever a considerable number of them happened to be living together, there they formed themselves into a separate society, and that principally for the purpose of maintaining their native worship in their midst. Consequently, just as there were diaspora communities composed of Jews, so in like manner there were those composed of Phoenicians, Egyptians, and so on. As early as the year 333 B.C. the Athenians issued a decree granting permission to the merchants from Citium (ἔμποροι Κιτιεῖς) to erect a temple to Aphrodite in the Piraeus, it being mentioned at the same time that the Egyptians (οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι) had already built a temple to Isis in the same place (Corp. Inscr. Attic, ii. 1, n. 168). At the beginning of the second century B.C. we find a community of Tyrian merchants in the island of Delos (Corp. Inscr. Graec. 2271: ἡ σύνοδος τῶν Τυρίων ἐμπόρων καὶ ναυκλήρων).[2154] Then we learn from an inscription belonging to the year 174 A.D. that at that date there lived in Puteoli a community of Tyrians who requested assistance from home to enable them to carry on the observance of their native worship (Corp. Inscr. Graec. 5853: οἱ ἐν Ποτιόλοις κατοικοῦντες scil. Τύριοι).[2155] In Puteoli there were also cultores lovis Heliopolitani Berytenses qui Puteolis consistunt (Orelli, Inscr. Lat. 1246 = Corp. Inser. Lat. vol. x. n 1634). But these Orientals, when they came to the West, were not contented with merely forming themselves into such communities as we have just referred to, but exactly like the Jews they endeavoured to win converts to their religion among the Greeks and Romans, and that sometimes with great success. We know in fact that even in early times the Greek religion owed not a little to the influence of the East. In the Hellenistic period again Oriental worships came to be more and more in vogue. Then as early as the latter days of the Republic we find the worship of the Egyptian gods already naturalized in Rome, while this was followed by the establishment in imperial times of the Syrian and Persian worships, above all that of Mithras (for more on this point, see No. 5, below). With the view of cultivating those worships, where they did not happen to be established and maintained directly by the State itself, the adherents of them also formed themselves into religious associations which. as regards their internal organization and their political position, are to be conceived of as being in every respect analogous to the corporations of foreign merchants mentioned above. Both in Greece and in Rome the law of the land contained express legal provisions for the benefit of those associations under the shelter of which it became possible for them to attain to a highly flourishing condition. In Greece these associations are met with from the beginning of the fourth century B.C. downwards, and that under the name of θίασοι or ἔρανοι. And notwithstanding their diversity otherwise, they are all characterized by certain common features, as might be expected from their being all of them so far under State regulation.[2156] In Rome again, and that from an early period, there were collegia for a great variety of purposes, sometimes for objects chiefly religious, sometimes for those of a political character (but forbidden since the time of Caesar and Augustus), sometimes with a view to the mutual help of their members, above all for the purpose of securing them honourable burial (collegia tenuiorum, collegia funeraticia). The main distinction between these and the sacerdotia publica populi Romani lay in this, that while recognised by the State they were not publicly endowed, but had to depend for their support upon the voluntary contributions of their members.[2157]
[2154] On the date of this inscription, see Foucart, Des associations religieuses ehes les Grecs, p. 225. At pp. 223-225 of this work we also find a more correct text of the inscription than that of the Corp. Inscr.
[2155] On this interesting inscription, comp. the commentary of Mommsen in the transactions of the Säche. Gesellsch. der Wissensch., philologico-historical department, 1850, p. 57 sqq.
[2156] On the religious associations in Greece, comp. Wescher, Revue archéologique, new series, vol. x. 1864, p. 460 sqq., xii. 1865, p. 214 sqq., xiii. 1866, p. 245 sqq. Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs, thiases, éranes, orgéons, avec la texte des inscriptions relatives à ces associations, Paris 1873. Lüder’s Die dionysischen Künstler, Berlin 1873. Heinrici, Die Christengemeinde Korinths und die religiösen Genossenschaften der Griechen (Zeitschr. für Wissensch. Theol. 1876, pp. 465-526, particularly p. 479 sqq.). Idem, Zur Geschichte der Anfange paulinischer Gemeinden (ibid. 1877, pp. 89-130). Neumann, Φιασῶται Ἰησοῦ (Jahrbb. für prot. Theol. 1885, pp. 123-125).
[2157] On the Roman collegia, comp. above all Mommsen, De collegiis et sodaliciis, 1843. Idem, Zeitschr. für geschichtl. Rechtswissenschaft, vol. xv. 1850, p. 853 sqq. Max Cohn, Zum römischen Vereinsrecht, Berlin 1873 (and the notice of it in Bursian’s Philol. Jahresbericht, 1873, ii. 885-890). Boissier, La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins, 2nd ed. 1878, ii. 288-304. Duruy, Du régime municipal dans l’empire romain (Revue historique, vol. i. 1876, p. 355 sqq.). De Rossi, Roma sotteranea, vol. iii. 1877, p. 37 sqq., and especially p. 507 sqq. For an excellent summary of the whole matter, consult Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 1878, pp. 131-142. For additional literature, see Hatch, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im Alterthum (German edition, 1883), p. 20. A considerable amount of material is furnished by the indices to the Corp. Inter. Lat. The Digest, xlvii 22, de collegiis et corporibs, is important as bearing upon the juridical side of the matter.
The position of voluntary religious associations as we have here described it, was precisely that which the Jewish communities also occupied now both in Greece and Rome, except in those instances in which, as in Alexandria, they enjoyed political privileges of a still more extensive character, which however was certainly not the case in Greece proper nor in Rome. In the dominions of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae the toleration of the Jewish communities and their religion was simply a matter of course. Indeed the first of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae conferred important political privileges upon the Jews who resided within their kingdoms (see below, paragraph 3). Ptolemy II. is said to have gone even the length of causing the Jewish law to be translated into Greek, and Ptolemy III. to have gone so far as to offer sacrifice in Jerusalem.[2158] No doubt when it was becoming more and more evident that the Jews were disposed to treat Hellenism rather contemptuously, and that unlike all other nations they insisted in maintaining a strong wall of partition, so far as religious matters were concerned, between themselves and every other people, several kings such as Antiochus Epiphanes for example tried to break down this opposition—tried to suppress the Jewish religion by force. But history teaches us that every attempt to do this only proved a failure, and we find that on the whole the toleration of former days continues to be enjoyed in later times as well. One of the foremost among the friends of the Jews was Ptolemy VL (Philometor), who went so far as to sanction the erection of a Jewish temple in Egypt (see paragraph 4, below). And if Ptolemy VII. (Physcon) assumed an attitude of hostility toward the Jews, he did so not because of their religious, but their political partisanship.[2159] In a similar way the legislation of the Romans expressly conceded to the Jews the free observance of their own religion, and extended its protection to them when sundry attempts were made to suppress it. But it was Caesar and Augustus to whom they were chiefly indebted for their formal recognition within the Roman Empire. Josephus (Antt. xiv. 10, xvi. 6) has transmitted to us a large number of public enactments, partly decrees of the Senate, partly edicts of Caesar and Augustus, and partly those of certain Roman officials or municipal authorities of that period—all of which have as their object the securing to the Jews of the free observance of their own religion, and the further confirmation of their privileges.[2160] As a rule the policy of Caesar was peculiarly unfavourable to those free unions, because at that time they were often made use of for political purposes, and so for this reason the emperor found it necessary to prohibit all collegia except those of ancient standing.[2161] But the Jewish communities were expressly exempted, it being further ordained that in future they were not to be forbidden to have a common fund of their own, and to hold meetings or gatherings.[2162] And accordingly on one occasion we find a Roman official appealing to this decree when issuing instructions to the authorities of Paros not to interfere with the Jews in the practice of their religious observances.[2163] In like manner the four public enactments, which Josephus has brought together in Antt. xiv. 10. 20-24, are doubtless to be traced to the influence of Caesar. They all of them serve directly or indirectly to guarantee to the Jews of Asia Minor the undisturbed exercise of their own religious observances.[2164] After the death of Caesar the two contending parties vied with each other in maintaining the privileges of the Jews. On the one side we find Dolabella, the warm supporter of Antony, and who in the year 43 B.C. took possession of Asia Minor, ratifying the privilege of exemption from military service, and of observing their own religious worship conferred upon the Jews of that province by previous governors, and sending a communication to the authorities of Ephesus to apprize them of this.[2165] On the other again we find Marcus Junius Brutus, who in Asia Minor was preparing in the spring of the year 42 B.C. to march against Antony and Octavianus, prevailing upon the people of Ephesus to issue a public edict declaring that the Jews were not to be interfered with in the observance of the Sabbath and their other sacred usages.[2166] In consequence of all this, Judaism acquired such a legal standing that it came to be treated as a religio licita throughout the whole extent of the Roman Empire.[2167] That the Jews living in the city of Rome also shared in these legal privileges is specially vouched for by Philo with regard to the time of Augustus.[2168] At the same time, if we may judge from what we know to have been the case in regard to other foreign worships, it must be assumed that down to the second century of our era the Jews of Rome were not at liberty to celebrate their religious observances within the pomaerium.[2169]
[2158] On the friendly disposition generally of the first Ptolemies toward the Jews, see Josephus, contra Apion. ii. 4-5.
[2159] Josephus (c. Apion. ii. 5) relates the following incident in connection with Ptolemy VII. (Physcon): After the death of Ptolemy VI., Ptolemy VII. tried to supplant Cleopatra the widow and successor of the former, and whose army was under the command of the Jewish general Onias. Well then when Ptolemy was marching out against Onias he ordered the Jews of Alexandria to be put in chains and then thrown down in the way of the elephants, in order that these might trample upon them and crush them. But instead of that, the elephants turned against the friends of the king, who on seeing this regretted what he had done and at once desisted. By way of commemorating this miraculous escape the Jews of Alexandria have been in the habit ever since of holding a thanksgiving festival every year. The story of the miraculous escape from being crushed to death by the elephants also forms the main subject of that absurd piece of romance known as the third Book of Maccabees, where it is likewise mentioned that the Jews have observed an annual thanksgiving festival ever since (3Ma_6:36). Here however it is not Ptolemy VII. but Ptolemy IV. that is the hero of the story. This parallel, as well as the contents themselves, tend to make the story more than doubtful. But if this much be historical, that Ptolemy VII. assumed an attitude of hostility towards the Jews, then it was not in consequence of their religion that he did so, but owing to their having espoused the side of Cleopatra.
[2160] On those enactments, comp. Gronovius, Decreta Romana et Asiatica pro Judaeis, Lugd. Bat. 1712. Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro Judaeis facta e Josepho collecta, Lips. 1768. Mendelssohn, Senati consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus (Acta societatis phil., Lips. ed. Ritschelius, vol. v. 1875, pp. 87-288). The notice of this work in the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, pp. 390-396. Niese, Bemerkungen über die Urkunden bei Josephus Archäol., books xiii. xiv. xvi. (Hermes, vol. xi. 1876, pp. 466-488). Mendelssohn’s reply to the latter, Rhein. Museum, new series, xxxii. 1877, pp. 249-258. For additional literature, see § 3, above (the paragraph on Josephus).
[2161] Sueton. Caesar, xlii: Cuncta collegia praeter antiquitus constituta distraxit. The prohibition was subsequently repeated by Augustus, Sueton. Aug. xxxii.: Collegia praeter antiqua et legitima dissolvit.
[2162] Antt. xiv. 10. 8: Καὶ γὰρ Γαίος Καῖσαρ ὁ ἡμέτερος στρατηγὸς καὶ ὕπατος ἐν διατάγματι κωλύων θιάσους συνάγεσθαι κατὰ πόλιν, μόνους τούτους οὐκ ἐκώλυσεν οὔτε χρήματα συνεισφέρειν οὔτε σύνδειπνα ποιεῖν.
[2163] Antt. xiv. 10. 8. The texts of those documents are reproduced so carelessly that in many instances it is no longer possible to make out who the Roman names are intended for. The name of the official who addressed the communication to the Parians is given in the transmitted text as Ἰούλιος Γαίος, which in any case is a corruption. Mendelssohn (Acta societatis philol., Lips. v. pp. 212-216) conjectures that it is Σερουίλιος Οὐατίας, proconsul of Asia 46-45 B.C., that is meant.
[2164] The four enactments are as follow: (1) A communication from the authorities of Laodicea to a Roman official (proconsul of Asia?), in which they assure him that, in conformity with his instructions, they would not interfere with the Jews in the observance of the Sabbath and the practice of their own religious usages (Antt. xiv. 10. 20). (2) A communication from the proconsul of Asia to the authorities of Miletus, in which these latter are enjoined not to interfere with the Jews in their observance of the Sabbath, and in the practice of their religious rites, and to allow them to dispose of their earnings in the way they have been accustomed to, τοὺς καρποὺς μεταχειρίζεσθαι καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς (Antt. xiv. 10. 21). (3) A public decree of the city of Halicarnassus (ψήφισμα Ἁλικαρνασσέων), pursuant to which the Jews were to be allowed, τά τε σάββατα ἄγειν καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ συντελεῖν κατὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαϊκοὺς νόμους καὶ τὰς προσευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τῇ θαλάσσῃ κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος (Antt. xiv. 10. 23; on the offering up prayers by the seashore, see § 27, p. 72). (4) A public decree of the town of Sardes, to the effect (Antt. xiv. 10. 24) that the Jews were to be allowed to meet on the days appointed by them for the celebration of their religious observances, and further that the magistrates of the town were to assign them a place of their own “on which to build and in which to reside” (εἰς οἰκοδομίαν καὶ οἴκησιν αὐτῶν, though from the petition of the Jews previously mentioned it would appear that it was only the building of a synagogue that was in question). These enactments seem to be traceable to one and the same stimulus emanating from Rome. Mendelssohn’s conjecture, that the stimulus in question was a decree of the Senate, passed in the year 46 B.C., is doubtful. See Mendelssohn, Acta socictatis philol., Lips. vol. v. pp. 205 sq., 211 sq., 217-228. For the name of the proconsul who addressed the injunction to the Milesians (Antt. xiv. 10. 21), see Bergmann, Philologus, 1847, p. 684. Waddington, Fastes des provinces asiatiques de l’empire romain, pt. i. 1872 (reprinted from Le Bas et Waddington’s Inscriptions, vol. iii.), p. 75, and Mendelssohn’s reply in his notice of the work in the Jenaër Literaturzeitung, 1874, art. 341. Ritschl, Rhein. Museum, 1874, p. 840 f. Mendelssohn, Acta, v. 212 f. The probable reading is Πόπλιος Σερούλιος Ποπλίου υἱὸς Οὐατίας (Vatia).
[2165] Antt. xiv. 10. 11-12. Mendelssohn’s observations on this passage, Acta, v. 247-250.
[2166] Antt. xiv. 10. 25. Mendelssohn’s observations on the passage, Acta, v. 251-254. In the generally received text the name of M. Junius Brutus is corrupted into Μάρκῳ Ἰουλίῳ Πομπηίῳ υἱῷ Βρούτον. For various suggestions as to how it might be corrected, see Bergmann, Philologus, 1847 p. 687, note. Waddington, Fastes, p. 74. Mendelssohn, Acta, v. 254.
[2167] The expression religio licita is derived from Tertullian, Apologet. chap. xxi.: insignissima religio, certe licita. It does not otherwise belong to the technical phraseology of Roman legislation. This latter speaks rather of collegia licita (Digest. xlvii. 22). For the decisive point here lies in this, that to the adherents of any particular worship permission is granted to organize themselves as a corporation and to meet together for the celebration of their worship. Hence the formula coire, convenire licet, which is also of frequent occurrence in the toleration edicts issued in favour of the Jews.
[2168] Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, § 23 (Mang. ii. 568 f.). It is there stated with reference to the way in which Augustus had acted toward the Jews of Rome that: Ἠπίστατο οὖν καὶ προσευχὰς ἔχοντας καὶ συνιόντας εἰς αὐτὰς, καὶ μάλιστα ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἑβδόμαις, ὅτε δημοσίᾳ τὴν πάτριον παιδεύονται φιλοσοφίαν. Ἠπίστατο καὶ χρήματα συναγαγόντας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπαρχῶν ἱερὰ, καὶ πέμποντας εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα διὰ τῶν τὰς θυσίας ἀναξόντων. Ἀλλʼ ὁ μὲν οὔτε ἐξῴκισε τῆς Ῥώμης ἐκείνους, οὔτε τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν αὐτῶν ἀφείλετο πολιτείαν, ὅτι τῆς καὶ Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἐφρόντιζεν, οὔτε ἐνεωτέρισεν εἰς τὰς προσευχὰς, οὔτε ἐκώλυσε συνάγεσθαι πρὸς τὰς τῶν νόμων ὑφηγήσεις, οὔτε ἠναντιώθη τοῖς ἀπαρχομένοις. Comp. also ibid. § 40 (Mang. ii. 592).
[2169] Comp. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 35.
In the recognition of the Jewish communities and their worship on the part of the State two important privileges are virtually included: the right of administering their own funds and jurisdiction over their own members. To the former of these prominence had already been given over and over again in the edicts issued in Caesar’s time.[2170] This was a matter of special importance to the Jews, as otherwise they would have been unable to fulfil their obligations to the temple at Jerusalem and to send thither the tribute prescribed by the law. But it was precisely this draining away of money from the provinces that seemed peculiarly offensive in the eyes of the Gentile authorities. We learn from Cicero’s speech in behalf of Flaccus, that this latter, during his administration of Asia, in several places confiscated the money thus collected by Jews with the view of forwarding it to Jerusalem.[2171] Further, the municipal authorities in Asia would seem to have gone on acting in a similar manner even after the edicts of Caesar’s time and actually in defiance of them. Consequently the public documents belonging to the time of Augustus refer principally to this point. As Augustus had sanctioned the remitting of these sums of money from Rome itself,[2172] so the municipalities of Asia Minor and Cyrene are enjoined not to interpose any obstacle in the way of the Jews in regard to this matter.[2173] Further, the appropriation of all such monies was to be punished as sacrilege.[2174] And that those decrees were still in force in the time of the Vespasian war is evident from an incidental utterance that on one occasion fell from the lips of Titus.[2175] It was a matter of no less importance to the Jews to be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over the members of their own community. For, as the Mosaic law concerned itself not only with acts of worship but with the affairs of ordinary life as well, these latter being also subjected to the regulative principles of a divine law, it was utterly repugnant to Jewish ideas of things that they should be tried by any other than Jewish law.[2176] Wherever the Jews went they took their own law along with them, and in accordance with it they administered justice among the members of their community. Evidences of this are to be found above all in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, for example, obtains a warrant from the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem for the arrest of certain converts to Christianity among the Jews living in Damascus (Acts 9:2). In other places again he causes such converts to be put in prison and scourged (Acts 22:19; Acts 26:11). Subsequently he himself was scourged by the Jews five times for being a Christian (2 Corinthians 11:24), on which occasions it is doubtless Jewish communities living abroad that are in question and not those of Palestine. In Corinth the proconsul Gallio directs the Jews to carry their complaint against Paul before their own authorities, on the ground that he would be prepared to interfere only if Paul had been charged with a criminal offence, but not if it was merely a question of transgressing the Jewish law (Acts 18:12-16); and then he quietly looks on and allows the Jews to maltreat Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, under his very eyes (Acts 18:17). From all this it will be seen that practically at all events the Jews exercised not only civil, but even criminal jurisdiction over the members of their communities. But whether they were actually warranted in doing so is open to question. In any case the foreign communities would doubtless be subject to certain restrictions in this respect, similar to those imposed upon the Jews in Palestine in the time of the procurators. But it is certain that in civil causes they enjoyed an independent jurisdiction, not merely in Alexandria (see above, p. 244), but elsewhere as well. Even before the time of Caesar we find such jurisdiction expressly conceded to the Jews of Sardes in a communication addressed to the authorities of that town by Lucius Antonius (governor of the province of Asia in 50-49 B.C.).[2177] And we see from the legislation of the Christian emperors that in later times as well the Jewish communities were everywhere left in the enjoyment of this privilege (see below at the close of the present paragraph).
[2170] Caesar himself conferred upon the Jwes the right χρήματα συνεισφέρειν (Antt. xiv. 10. 21). In the communication addressed by the proconsul of Asia to the Milesians (Antt. xiv. 10. 21), permission is given to the Jews τοὺς καρπους μεταχειρίζεσθαι καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς.
[2171] Cicero, Pro Flacco, xxviii.: Quum aurum Judaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto, ne ex Asia exportari liceret.… Ubi ergo crimen set? quoniam quidem furtum nusquam reprehendis, edictum probas, judicatum fateris, quaesitum et prolatum palam non negae, actum esse per viros primaries res ipsa declarat: Apameae manifesto deprehensum, ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum esse auri pondo centum paullo minus per Sex. Caesium, equitem Romanum, castissimum hominem atque integerrimum; Laodiceae viginti pondo paullo amplius per hunc L. Peducaeum, judicem nostrum, Adramyttii per Cn. Domitium legatum; Pergami non multum. Previous to this Mithridates had appropriated the sums belonging to the Jews in Cos (Antt. xiv. 7. 2).
[2172] Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, § 23 (ed. Mang. ii. 568 sq.).
[2173] Joseph. Antt. xvi. 6. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 40 (ed. Mang. ii. 592).
[2174] Antt. xvi. 6. 2, 4. The decrees which Josephus has collected in Antt. xvi. 6. 2-7 have evidently been the outcome of those negotiations, an account of which is given in Antt. xvi. 2. 3-5 (comp. also xii. 3. 2). When, for example, Herod happened to be visiting Agrippa in Asia Minor in the year 14 B.C., the Jews in that quarter took occasion to complain of the oppression to which they were being subjected at the hands of the municipal authorities throughout the province, declaring that they had been despoiled of the money intended for the temple, and that they were compelled to appear in the courts of law on the Sabbath. Agrippa protected the Jews against any invasion of their rights in regard to both of those matters. But it was also to these very points that the toleration edicts in question had reference.
[2175] Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 2 (Bekker, pp. 107, 22 sqq.): δασμολογεῖν τε ὑμῖν ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀναθήματα συλλέγειν ἐπετρέψαμεν κ.τ.λ.
[2176] Comp. the Rabbinical passages in Wetstein, Nov. Test., note on 1 Corinthians 6:1.
[2177] Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 17: Ἰουδαῖοι πολῖται ἡμέτεροι προσελθόντες μοι ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτοὺς σύνοδον ἔχειν ἰδίαν κατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς καὶ τόπον ἴδιον, ἐν ᾧ τά τε πράγματα καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀντιλογίας κρίνουσι· τοῦτό τε αἰτησαμένοις ἵνʼ ἐξῇ αὐτοῖς ποιεῖν, τηρῆσαι καὶ ἐπιτρέψαι ἔκρινα. On L. Antonius, a brother of the triumvir M. Antony, see Pauly’s Encyclop. i. 1. 1182 sq. Bergmann, Philologus, 1847, p. 680. Waddington, Fastes, p. 63. Mendelssohn, Acta societatis phil., Lips. v. 160, 186.
As the requirements of Jewish legalism might easily bring the Jews of the dispersion into collision with the arrangements of civil life, they could hope to enjoy the absolutely free exercise of their own religion only in those cases where the civil legislation and government did not require of them anything that was incompatible with their own law. But even in this respect Roman tolerance made largo concessions to the Jews. One of the most important of them was exemption from military service. For Jews to perform such service in any but a Jewish army would be simply impossible, for on the Sabbath they were forbidden either to bear arms or to march farther than 2000 cubits.[2178] This matter assumed a somewhat practical character when, at the breaking out of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey in the year 47 B.C., Pompey’s party endeavoured to raise large levies of troops throughout the whole of the East. In the province of Asia alone the consul Lentulus raised as many as two legions of Roman citizens.[2179] Now if it was the case, as precisely on this very occasion we are informed it was, that in that quarter there was also a large number of Jews who enjoyed the rights of Roman citizenship, then they too would be liable to this conscription. But at their own request Lentulus granted them the privilege of exemption from military service, and issued instructions to this effect to all the authorities everywhere who had charge of the conscription.[2180] Then six years after this (43 B.C.) Dolabella confirmed the Jews of this same province in their privilege of ἀστρατεία, and in doing so he expressly appealed to the previous edicts.[2181] In Palestine also was this same privilege conceded to them by Caesar.[2182] Among the other privileges that were conceded to them in deference to the requirements of Jewish legalism, we might further mention that, in pursuance of an order to that effect by Augustus, the Jews were not to be compelled to appear in a court of law on the Sabbath;[2183] that when a public distribution of money or corn took place and the day of the distribution fell on a Sabbath, then in pursuance of a similar order by the same emperor, their share of the money or the corn was to be delivered to them on the day following;[2184] and lastly, that instead of the oil furnished by the provinces and which Jews were forbidden to make use of, they were to receive an equivalent in money,—a usage the continuance of which was confirmed to the Jews of Antioch, for example, by the governor Mucianus in the time of the Vespasian war.[2185]
[2178] For the prohibition with regard to bearing arms, consult Mishna, Shabbath vi. 2-4; and for the marching, see above, p. 102; also Antt. xiii. 8. 4, xiv. 10. 12.
[2179] Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 4: (Pompejus) legiones effecerat civium Romanorum IX .… duas ex Asia, quas Lentulus consul conscribendas curaverat.
[2180] Antt. xiv. 10. 13, 14, 16, 18, 19. Comp. Mendelssohn on this passage in Acta soc. phil., Lips. v. 167-188; Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, p. 393.
[2181] Antt. xiv. 10. 11-12.
[2182] Antt. xiv. 10. 6.
[2183] Antt. xvi. 6. 2 and 4 (the technical phrase ἐγγύας ὁμολογεῖν means to give a guarantee that one will appear before a court). On the occasion of those decrees, see note 139.
[2184] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 23 (ed. Mang. ii. 569).
[2185] Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 1. On the prohibition against the use of oil supplied by Gentiles, see above, § 22, vol. i. p. 55.
This whole position of the Jews with regard to their enjoyment of public rights was never materially or permanently altered at any subsequent period. Sometimes no doubt the imperial legislation introduced certain restrictions, and Judaism was also subjected now and then to temporary persecution. But nothing of the nature of a lasting or material change took place in the existing state of things till down toward later imperial times. The measures used by Tiberius against Roman Jews were confined exclusively to the city of Rome. No doubt a serious crisis arose in the time of Caligula. But it was precisely in such a crisis that it was seen how important it was for the Jews to be able to take their stand upon the public rights they had now so long enjoyed. For nothing was more calculated seriously to endanger the religious freedom of the Jews than the introduction and gradual diffusion of the worship of the emperors. The more that such worship was being promoted by public authority, it would necessarily have more and more the appearance of an act of disloyalty on the part of the Jews when they refused to join in it. And so at a time when Caligula was everywhere peremptorily insisting upon the observance of that worship, which, ever since Augustus, had been introduced again and again by people from the provinces in the heat of their own zeal (see § 22, vol. i. p. 16), the religious freedom of the Jews would have been irretrievably lost had the demand been consistently enforced in their case as well. As long as Caligula lived the attempt to do so was actually made, and history can tell what frightful storms were conjured up for the Jews in consequence (see § 17‌c). But fortunately for them the reign of Caligula was but of short duration. Claudius his successor lost no time in simply restoring the previous state of matters by issuing a decree of universal toleration.[2186] Since then the idea of forcing the Jews to take part in emperor worship has never been seriously thought of. Their title to exemption was regarded as an ancient privilege, a circumstance which placed them in a much more favourable position than the Christians enjoyed. The subsequent treatment of the Roman Jews by Claudius was confined, like that of Tiberius, to Rome itself, and did not lead to any permanent result. Even the reign of Nero, thanks to the Empress Poppaea, was on the whole favourable to the Jews (comp. note [2187] The result of the great Vespasian war and the destruction of Jerusalem, so far as the Jews of the dispersion were concerned, was this, that the tax of two drachmae previously paid to the temple at Jerusalem was from that time forward to be given to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.[2188] No doubt to have to do this was a thing somewhat repugnant to the feelings of a Jew. But in no other respect did Vespasian do anything to prejudice the religious freedom of the Jews. Their political rights are expressly safeguarded by him even in Alexandria and Antioch for example.[2189] Domitian insisted in the most rigorous manner possible upon the payment of the two drachmae tax,[2190] and visited with severe punishment such of the Romans as became converts to Judaism.[2191] But the existing rights of the Jews were not rescinded. Under Nerva again certain alleviations were granted with regard to both the points just mentioned. As for the two-drachmae tax, though not abolished, it was imposed in a less offensive form,[2192] and it was no longer allowable to prosecute any one on the charge of having adopted “Jewish modes of life.”[2193] A violent disturbance of the existing state of things, nay the most violent that the Jews had ever experienced since Caligula’s time, was brought about by the serious struggles that took place in the reign of Trajan and Hadrian. Hadrian had gone so far—and this was the cause of the insurrection in his time—as to issue a formal prohibition of the rite of circumcision,[2194] a prohibition that was hardly revoked after the successful quelling of the rising. But his successor Antoninus Pius granted permission to circumcise in the case of native Jews, and confined the prohibition to Gentiles.[2195] In like manner Septimius Severus contented himself with merely prohibiting conversions to Judaism,[2196] and this continued to be also the standpoint of several Christian emperors who were not otherwise favourably disposed toward the Jewish religion.[2197] It will be seen therefore that the whole of the repressive measures aimed merely at preventing the further spread of Judaism. As far as native Jews were concerned, their existing public rights were not interfered with to any appreciable extent As showing this, there are three points that are worth noting. (1) As in earlier,[2198] so also in later times the Jewish worship continued to enjoy the formal protection of the State. On one occasion when Callistus, subsequently a bishop (in the time of Bishop Victor, 189-199 A.D.), ventured to disturb Jewish worship in Rome, the Jews prosecuted him for doing so before Fascianus the prefect of the city, who sentenced the offender to be banished to the mines of Sardinia.[2199] Of the Christian emperors, even those of them who were unfavourably disposed toward the Jews, and who had forbidden the building of new synagogues, had nevertheless no objection to place the existing ones under the protection of the Jaws of the empire.[2200] (2) The Jewish communities continued to enjoy to quite the same extent as in former times the right of administering their own, funds. Above all were they still permitted as much as ever (till toward the end of the fourth century of our era) to send their sacred tribute to the patriarchate in Palestine (the new central authority of the Jewish people after the destruction of Jerusalem). This tribute was collected every year by the apostoli sent out by the patriarchs for the purpose, and when thus collected it was conveyed to Palestine.[2201] It was not till towards the close of the fourth century of our era that the civil authority began gradually to put a stop to this.[2202] (3) In later imperial times the Jews were also permitted still to enjoy independent jurisdiction over the members of their own community, but of course exclusively in civil causes and only when the two parties in the case agreed to have the matter disposed of by a Jewish tribunal.[2203] Powers of a very extensive character must have been in the hands of the Jewish ethnarch or patriarch in Palestine, who after the destruction of the Jewish state formed the supreme head of the people. The whole of the communities of the dispersion seem to have submitted to his jurisdiction without any hesitation. And so full were the prerogatives he exercised, that the Fathers of the Church felt themselves under the necessity of taking very considerable pains in order to show that, notwithstanding those prerogatives, the sceptre had been taken from Judah as far back as the time of Christ.[2204] But there is perhaps nothing that indicates better the secure basis on which those political privileges of the Jews just described were found to rest, than the circumstance that in the time of the persecution of the Christians we even find instances of these latter becoming converts to Judaism for their own safety.[2205]
[2186] Antt. xix. 5. 2-3.
[2187] The names Αὐγουστήσιοι and Ἀγριππήσιοι, borne by two Jewish communities in Rome (see below, No. 2), point to the relations of Jews to Augustus and Agrippa. The Empress Livia had a Jewish female slave of the name of Akme (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 5. 7; Bell. Jud. i. 32. 6, 33. 7). Upon an inscription of the time of Claudius, a [Cl]audia Aster [Hi]erosolymitana [ca]ptiva, evidently a Jewish female slave of Claudius, is mentioned (Orelli-Henzen, Inscr. Lat. n. 5302 = Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 6467 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 1971). We find a Jewish comedian Alityrus at the court of Nero (Joseph. Vita, 3). Poppaea is herself designated as θεοσεβής, and was always ready to advocate Jewish petitions with the emperor (Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11; Vita, 3). Tacitus, Annal. xvi. 6, remarks of her, that after her death she was not burnt according to Roman custom, but embalmed “after the fashion of foreign kings.” The Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome under Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, honoured and assisted by the kindness of all three emperors (Joseph. Vita, 76). In the person of Domitian’s cousin Flavius Clemens, not Judaism indeed, but Christianity, which proceeded from Judaism, penetrated even the imperial family (for so are Dio Case. lxvii. 14, and Sueton. Domit. 15, now universally and correctly understood). Of later date may perhaps be mentioned also the Jewish playfellow (conlusor) of Caracalla (Spartian. Caracalla, 1; also Görres, Zeitschr. f. Wissenschaftl. Theol. 1884, p. 147 sqq.). We must remember too the active relations of Herod and his dynasty with Augustus and his successors. Most of Herod’s sons were brought up at Rome. Agrippa I. spent the greater part of his life in Rome, remaining there till his nomination as king; as a boy he was on terms of friendship with Drusus, the son of Tiberius (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 1), and afterwards with Caligula. The intimate relations of Agrippa II. and Berenice with Vespasian and Titus are well known; and lastly, it is worthy of remark how frequently the Gentile names of emperors are found among Jewish names upon inscriptions. The following occur, and that in tolerably large numbers: Julius, Claudius, Flavius, Aelius, Aurelius, Valerius. Even though these names may frequently refer not to the old families, but to later emperors (Constantine the Great’s full name e.g. being C. Flavius Valerius Aurelius Claudius Const.), still they certainly prove a close relation of the Jews to the emperors. Comp. also Harnack’s article on the Christiane at the imperial court (Princeton Review, July 1878, pp. 289-280).
[2188] Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6. Dio Cass. lxvi. 7. For the history of this tax, comp. Zorn, Historia fisci Judaici sub imperio veterum Romanorum. 1734.
[2189] Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 1; Bell. Jud. vii. 5. 2. Comp. paragraph 3, below.
[2190] Sueton. Domitian. xii.: Judaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est; ad quem deferebantur, qui vel inprofessi Judaicam viverent vitam, vel dissimulata origine imposita genti tributa con pependissent. Interfuisse me adulescentulum memini, cum a procuratore frequentissimoque consilio inspiceretur nonagenarius senex, an circumsectus esset.
[2191] Dio Cass. lxvii. 14: καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθη ἐξοκέλλοντες πολλοὶ κατεδικάσθησαν, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον, οἱ δὲ τῶν γοῦν οὐσιῶν ἐστερήθησαν.
[2192] This we are bound to infer from the coins of Nerva’s time, with their inscription: Fisci Judaici calumnia sublata (Madden’s History of Jewish Coinage, p. 199, and elsewhere). Seeing that the tax is found to be still in existence at a later period (Appian, Syr. 1.; Origen, Epist. ad African. § 14; Tertull. Apologet. chap. xviii.: vectigalis libertas = freedom purchased by payment of a tax), what is meant cannot be that the tax was abolished altogether, but that it was exacted in a form less calculated to offend the religious scruples of the Jews. It may be conjectured that from this time forth they were not to be called upon to pay it as for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
[2193] Dio Cass. lxviii. 1: οὐτʼ ἀσεβειας οὔτʼ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ βιου καταιτιασθαι τινας συνεχώρησε.
[2194] Spartian. Hadrian. xiv.: moverunt ea tempestate et Judaei bellum, quod vetabantur mutilare genitalia.
[2195] Digest. xlviii. 8. 11, pr.: Circumcidere Judaeis filios suos tautum rescripto divi Pii permittitur: in non ejusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur.
[2196] Spartian. Sept. Sev. xvii.: Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit.
[2197] On this see Codex Theodosianus, xvi. 8.
[2198] Comp. especially the ψήφισμα Ἁλικαρνασσέων, Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 23. ἂν δέ τις κωλύσῃ ἡ ἄρχων ἡ ἰδιώτης, τῷδε τῷ ζημιώματι ὑπεύθινος ἔστω καὶ ὀφειλέτω τῇ πόλει.
[2199] Hippolyti, Philosophumena, ix. 12.
[2200] Codex Theodosianus, xvi. 8. 9, 12, 20, 21, 26, 26, 27.
[2201] On these apostoli and their functions, see Euseb. Comment. ad Jesaj. xviii. 1 (Collectio nova patrum, ed. Montfaucon, ii 425). Epiphan. haer. xxx. 4 and 11. Jerome, ad Gal. i, 1 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, vii. 1. 363). Codex Theodos. xvi. 8. 14. Their chief duty would seem to have been to act as media of communication between the various Jewish communities. Hence we also meet with them in later times when the collecting of the tribute in question was no longer allowed, for example, in Venosa on the epitaph of a girl fourteen years of age, quei dixerunt trenus duo apostuli et duo rebbites (Hirschfeld, Buttettino dell’ Instituto di corrisp. archeol. 1867, p. 152 = Ascoli, Inscrizioni, p. 61, n. 19 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 648 and 6220 = Lenormant, Revue des études juives, vol. No. 12, p. 205).
[2202] On the suppression of this practice (which did not take place all at once), comp. Julian, Epist. xxv. Codex Theodos. xvi. 8. 14, 17, 29.
[2203] Cod. Theodos. ii. 1. 10: Sane si qui per compromissum, ad similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Judseos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum judicium jure publico non vetentur: eorum etiam sententias provinciarum judices exsequantur, tamquam ex sententia cognitoris arbitri fuerint attributi (edict of the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius of the year 398 A.D.). Comp. further, Cod. Theodos. xvi. 8. 8.
[2204] Pamphil. Apolog. pro Orig. in Routh’s Reliquiae sacrae, iv. 360. Cyrill, Cateches. xii. 17. Also in general, Orig. ad African. § 14 (for the passage, see vol. i. p. 173). Vopisc. Vita Saturnin. chap. viii. Chr. G. Fr. Walch, Historia Patriarcharum Judaeorum, quorum in libris juris Romani fit mentio, Jenae 1752.
[2205] Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 12. 1.
3. Their Equality in Regard to the Rights of Citizenship
There can be no question that, in the majority of the older cities of Phoenicia, Syria, and Asia Minor, as well as in Greece proper, the Jews who went to live in them occupied the position of settlers (as opposed to citizens).[2206] We no doubt hear of occasional instances in which individual Jews have the rights of citizenship conferred upon them. Paul, for instance, who was a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), is a case in point. But, as a rule, the Jewish communities in those cities are to be regarded in the light of private associations of settlers, which were recognised by the State and on which certain rights were conferred, but the members of which did not enjoy the rights of citizenship and consequently were also debarred from having a voice in the direction of the affairs of the city. Still there was after all a pretty large number of towns in which the Jews enjoyed the rights of citizenship. This was true above all of the towns more recently built in the Hellenistic period, and pre-eminently of the foremost amongst them, viz. Antioch and Alexandria, the capitals of the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies respectively. Seleucus I. Nicator († 280 B.C.) conferred the rights of citizenship upon the Jews living in all the towns founded by himself in Asia Minor and Syria,[2207] rights which they were all found to be still enjoying in the time of Josephus.[2208] The most important of these towns was Antioch, where the rights of the Jews were inscribed upon tablets of brass.[2209] They also continued to enjoy their rights of citizenship there at a later period, not only under the Seleucidae after Antiochus Epiphanes, but under the Romans as well[2210] Even in the time of the great Vespasian war Titus declined to accede to the urgent request of the people of Antioch to deprive the Jews of the rights of citizenship by simply appealing to their ancient privileges.[2211] In like manner in Alexandria the Jews obtained citizen rights when the city was founded.[2212] Alexander the Great conferred upon them “equal rights with the Macedonians” (who are no other than just the regular citizens of Alexandria), while the Diadochoi granted them permission to call themselves Macedonians.[2213] Nor did any change take place with regard to those rights in the time of the Romans. They were expressly confirmed by Julius Caesar, as might be seen from what was inscribed upon a pillar set up in Alexandria, and which was still standing in Josephus’ day.[2214] It is true that, during the persecution in Caligula’s time, the rights of the Alexandrian Jews were trampled under foot. But as soon as Claudius succeeded to the throne he lost no time in guaranteeing the continued existence of Jewish rights.[2215] And as in Antioch so here too they were not curtailed in the slightest degree, even after the war of the year 70 of our era.[2216]
[2206]a This appears indirectly, above all, from Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 4. For in that passage the historian draws attention to it as being something unusual that the Jews should be in the enjoyment of the rights of citizens in Alexandria, Antioch and the cities of Ionia. Of course the list here given is not complete, for they also enjoyed similar rights in all the towns founded by Seleucus I. Still we can see that it was not usual for Jews to possess them.
[2207] For a list of them consult Appian. Syr. lvii.
[2208] Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 1: Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ ἐν αἶς ἔκτισε πόλεσιν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ καὶ τῇ κάτω Συρίᾳ καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ μητροπόλει Ἀντιοχείᾳ πολιτείας αὐτοὺς ἠξίωσε, καὶ τοῖς ἐνοικισθεῖσιν ἰσοτίμους ἀπέδειξε Μακεδόσι καὶ Ἕλλησιν, ὡς τὴν πολιτείαν ταύτην ἔτι καὶ νῦν διαμένειν.
[2209] Bell. Jud. vii. 5. 2. Comp. in general, besides Antt. xii. 3. 1, also contra Apion. ii. 4: αὐτῶν γὰρ ἡμῶν οἱ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν κατοικοῦντες Ἀντιοχεῖς ὀνομάζονται· τὴν γὰρ πολιτείαν αὐτοῖς ἔδωκεν ὁ κτίστης Σέλευκος.
[2210] Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3.
[2211] Bell. Jud. vii. 5. 2; Antt. xii. 3. 1.
[2212] On the Jewish rights of citizenship in Alexandria, comp. Lumbroso, Ricerche Alessandrine, Turin 1871. Löscher in Comm. (90 pages large quarto; reprinted from the Memorie della Reale Academia delle scienze di Torino, 2nd series, vol. xxvii.). I am acquainted with this treatise only through the review of it in the Literar. Centralbl. 1873, No. 1.
[2213] Joseph. Apion. ii. 4: Εἰς κατοίκησιν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἔδωκε τόπον Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ ἴσης παρὰ τοῖς Μακεδόσι τιμῆς ἐπέτυχον…. καὶ μέχρι νῦν αὐτῶν ἡ φυλη την προσηγορίαν εἶχε Μακεδόνες. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7: Αλέξανδρος … ἔδωκε τὸ μετοικεῖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐξ ἰσοτιμίας πρὸς Ελληνας. Διέμεινε δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ τιμὴ καὶ παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων, οἳ καὶ τόπον ἴδιον αὐτοῖς ἀφώρισαν, ὅπως καθαρωτέραν ἔχοιεν τὴν δίαιταν, ἧττον ἐπιμισγομένων τῶν ἀλλοφύλω", καὶ γρηματίζειν ἐπέτρεψαν Μακεδόνας. Ἐπεί τε Ῥωμαῖοι κατεστησαντο τὴν Αἴγυπτον, οὔτε Καῖσαρ ὁ πρῶτος οὔτε τῶν μετʼ αὐτόν τις ὑπέμεινε τὰς ἀπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου τιμὰς Ἰουδαίων ἐλαττῶσαι.
[2214] Antt. xiv. 10. 1: Καῖσαρ Ἰούλιος τοῖς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Ἰουδαίοις ποιήσας χαλκῆν στήλην ἐδήλωσεν ὅτι Ἀλεξανδρέων πολῖται εἰσίν Apion. ii. 4: τὴν στήλην τὴν ἑστῶσαν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα περιέχουσαν ἃ Καῖσαρ ὁ μέγας τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἔδωκεν.
[2215] Antt. xix. 5. 2 (with a glance back at the history of the citizen rights of the Jews of Alexandria).
[2216] Antt. xii. 3. 1: κρατήσαντος Οὐεσπασιανοῦ καὶ Τίτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκουμένης, δεηθέντες οἱ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς καὶ Ἀντιοχεῖς ἵνα τὰ δίκαια τῆς πολιτείας μηκέτι μένῃ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, οὐκ ἐπέτυχον. Lumbroso (in the dissertation already referred to) expresses the opinion that Ptolemy IV. (Philopater) created a new order of citizen rights in Alexandria, which found its expression in the worship of Bacchus. Now, as the Jews were not at liberty to join in this worship they were excluded from this new order of citizen rights, and only retained the former designation of Macedonians though it had lost its original value. But it may be proved from what is said over and over again by Josephus, that no change whatever took place with regard to the political status of the Jews of Alexandria from the time of Alexander the Great till that of Vespasian; while the third Book of Maccabees, on which Lumbroso founds, is as a rule hardly to be appealed to as historical testimony.
Nor did the Jews enjoy the rights of citizenship merely in the towns newly founded in the Hellenistic period, but also in those on the coast of Ionia as well, and above all in Ephesus, in which towns those rights had been conferred upon them by Antiochus II. Theos (261-246 B.C.). When, in the time of Augustus, the municipal authorities in that quarter petitioned that the Jews should either be excluded from the enjoyment of the rights of citizenship, or be compelled to renounce their separate worship and conform to that of the native divinities, Agrippa, who happened to have the administration of the eastern provinces, maintained intact the ancient privileges of the Jews, whose interests on this occasion were represented by Nicolaus Damascenus, deputed to do so by Herod (in the year 14 B.C.).[2217] We learn incidentally that the Jews also possessed the rights of citizenship in Sardes[2218] for example, and not less so outside of Asia Minor as in the case of Cyrene.[2219]
[2217] Antt. xii. 3. 2. Apion. ii. 4: οἱ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην Ἰωνίαν τοῖς αὐθιγευέσι πολίταις ὁμωνυμοῦσι, τοῦτο παρασχόντων αὐτοῖς τῶν διαδόχων. On the negotiations of the year 14 B.C., see besides Antt. xii. 3.2. also Antt. xvi. 2. 3-5, and note 139, above.
[2218] Antt. xiv. 10. 24.
[2219] Antt. xvi. 6. 1. Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 463.
The position thus created for the Jews in consequence of possessing all those privileges was one involving an internal contradiction. On the one hand, they formed when living in Gentile cities a community of foreigners who, for the furtherance of their religious concerns, had organized themselves into an independent body, and whose religious views were hopelessly at variance with every species of Gentile worship. And yet, on the other, they participated as citizens in all the rights and duties of municipal life, they had seats and the right of votiug in the civic councils, and had a share in the direction of the affairs of the city. This must of necessity have led to incessant collision. For the idea of separating religious from political concerns was, so long as it remained true to itself, altogether foreign to classical antiquity; it looked upon the worship of the native divinities as also forming an essential part of the public affairs of the city. And so how it must have been felt to be a standing contradiction to see in the very heart of the municipality, and enjoying all the rights of citizenship, a body of people who not only persisted in worshipping their own God alongside those of the city, but who assailed every form of Gentile worship whatever as an abomination. Such a thing as the toleration of various worships alongside of each other was really possible only within the cosmopolitan circle of the Roman Empire. For there was realized in all its fulness the fundamental thought for which Hellenism paved the way, that every man is free to be happy after his own fashion. Consequently there was room here for Jews as well. In the municipal towns, on the other hand, which clung to the ancient modes of life in matters of religion as well, the Jews must have been felt to be a continual thorn in the sides of their fellow-citizens. It is therefore not to be wondered at—rather should we say that it entirely accords with the historical development of things, that the Jews should have been persecuted by the municipal towns, whereas the higher authority of the Roman Empire took them under its wing. In those towns there were outbursts of hatred against the Jews on every occasion, and that above all in those of them in which they enjoyed the rights of citizenship, such as Alexandria, Antioch, many of the towns of Asia Minor, and also Caesarea in Palestine where the ἰσοπολιτεία was conferred upon Jews and Gentiles by Herod the Great.[2220] One of the principal accusations against the Jews on those occasions was precisely this, that they refused to worship the gods of the city.[2221] But the Roman authorities always came to the rescue and safeguarded the religious freedom of the Jews in so far as these latter did not themselves forfeit their rights by showing revolutionary tendencies. It is well worth noting how, in the address in which Nicolaus Damascenus pleads for the rights of the Jews being respected, it is pointed out as something quite new, as a boon which the Romans, with their orderly system of government, were the first to create, viz. that everywhere every one was at liberty “to live and worship his own gods.”[2222]
[2220] In Alxandria Jews and Gentiles lived in a state of constant feud ever since the city was founded (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7); and in Caligula’s time it was here above all that the Gentile portion of the populace persecuted the Jews before the emperor himself had begun to oppress them (Philo, adv. Flaccum). In Vespasian’s time the Alexandrians besieged the emperor with petitions to get him to deprive their Jewish fellow-citizens of their rights (Antt. xii. 3. 1). In Antioch it got the length of bloodshed in Vespasian’s time (Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3), while Titus again was asked to expel the Jews from the city altogether, and if he could not see his way to do this, then to deprive them of their rights at least (Bell. Jud. vii. 5. 2; Antt. xii. 3. 1). In Asia Minor the municipal towns were always making fresh attempts to prevent the Jews from practising their own worship, which was precisely the reason that the Roman edicts of toleration became necessary (Antt. xii. 3. 2, xvi. 2, 3-5, and in general the edicts given in Antt. xiv. 10 and xvi. 6), The same thing also took place in Cyrene (Antt. xvi. 6. 1 and 5). In Caesarea it often got the length of sanguinary encounters between Gentiles and Jews (Antt. xx. 8. 7, 9; Bell. Jud. ii. 13. 7, 14. 4-5, 18. 1). In like manner in towns where Jews did not enjoy the rights of citizenship the hatred of the Gentile populace occasionally vented itself upon them in the shape of bloody persecution, as was pre-eminently the case at the outbreak of the Jewish war in Ascalou, Ptolemais, Tyre, Hippos, Gadara (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 5) and Damascus (Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 2). With regard to the people of Ascalon, Philo observes that they had an inveterate dislike to the Jews (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 30, ed. Mang. ii, 576). Of the Phoenicians it was, according to Josephus, the Tyrians who were specially animated by feelings of hostility toward the Jews (contra Apion. i. 13).
[2221] Antt. xii. 3. 2.
[2222] Antt. xvi. 2. 4 (ed Bekker, vol. iv. p. 6): ἐξεῖναι κατὰ χώραν ἑκάστοις τὰ οἰκεῖα τιμῶσιν ἄγειν καὶ διαζῆν.
The more that the attitude of the Romans, with their world-wide power, was on the whole favourable to Judaism, it was of but the greater consequence to the Jews of the dispersion that so many of them possessed the rights of Roman citizenship, not only in Rome, but elsewhere as well. According to the testimony of Philo, the majority of the Jews living in Rome enjoyed such rights, and that in the capacity of descendants of freedmen. Of the Jews taken captive in war, and whom Pompey had once brought to Rome and there sold as slaves, many were set free by their own master, and on obtaining their freedom they were at the same time invested with the rights of citizenship, which rights their descendants continued to enjoy ever after.[2223] It would even appear that some of those libertini must have quitted Rome and gone back to Jerusalem again, where they had founded a community by themselves. For the Λιβερτῖνοι mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (6:9) can hardly have been other than Roman freedmen and their descendants.[2224] Consequently there would be Jews living in Jerusalem too who possessed the rights of Roman citizenship. But we also find such in large numbers elsewhere, and above all in Asia Minor.[2225] Hence there is nothing at all strange in the circumstance that the Apostle Paul, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, was found to be in the enjoyment of the rights of Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37; Acts 22:25-29; Acts 23:27).[2226] It is true we have no means of knowing how the Jews of Asia Minor attained to this position.[2227] But the fact itself is all the less open to question, that it is well known otherwise that as early as the first century B.C. there were many thousands of Roman citizens living in Asia Minor.[2228] The advantages that accompanied the possession of the rights of Roman citizenship were very considerable. For those living in the provinces it was of consequence above all that a Roman was subject only to the jurisdiction of Roman courts, the civil causes being disposed of by a jury composed of Roman citizens,[2229] and those of a criminal character by the Roman procurator or governor. It was only in the civitates, recognised as liberae, that the Roman citizens as well were subject to the jurisdiction of other than Roman authorities.[2230] Of the various privileges[2231] the following may be further mentioned as worthy of special note: (1) Exemption from every kind of degrading punishment, such for example as scourging and crucifixion;[2232] and (2) the jus provocationis or appellationis, both which phrases were used synonymously in the imperial age, and were employed to denote the right of appealing against any sentence to the emperor himself. This right held good in the case of civil as well as criminal causes.[2233] We must beware of confounding with this appeal against a sentence already pronounced the claim that might be put in at the very commencement of the process to have the whole matter referred to the emperor in Rome. According to the usual though not altogether indisputable view, Roman citizens charged with capital offences were also at liberty to urge this claim.[2234]
[2223] Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, § 23 (Mang. ii. 568 sq.): Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ πλείους ἀπελευθερωθέντες. Αἰχμάλωτοι γὰρ ἀχθέντες εἰς Ἰταλίαν ὑπὸ τῶν κτησαμένων ἠλευθερώθησαν, οὐδὲν τῶν πατρίων παραχαράξαι βιασθέντες … Ἀλλʼ ὁ μὲν (scil. Augusts) οὔτε ἐξῴκισε τῆς Ῥώμης ἐκείνους, οὒτε τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν αὐτῶν ἀφείλετο πολιτείαν. The act of manumission might take place in different ways. When it was performed in the formal solemn fashion the slave received along with his freedom the rights of Roman citizenship. See Rein in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1026 ff. (art. “Libertini”).
[2224] A libertinus is either the son of a freedman or a freedman himself (see Rein as above). But the community at Jerusalem founded by such libertini seems to have still retained its designation of συναγωγὴ Λιβερτίνων among the later generations as well. Comp. in general the commentaries on Acts 6:9 (the matter being treated with great detail for example in Jo. Chrph. Wolf’s Curae phil. in Nov. Test. i. 1090-93, with a list of the earlier literature; also Deyling, Observationes Sacrae, ii. 437-444), and the Bible lexicons of Winer, Schenkel and Riehm under “Libertiner.”
[2225] So in Ephesus (Antt. xiv. 10. 13, 16, 19), Sardes (Antt. xiv. 10. 17), Delos (Antt. xiv. 10. 14), and generally, Antt. xiv. 10. 18.
[2226] Doubts as to Paul’s enjoyment of such rights have been raised for example by Renan (Paulus, chap. xiii. of German edition 1869, p. 442) and Overbeck (Erklärung der Apostelgesch. pp. 266 sq., 429 sq.). But the reasons advanced in support of those doubts appear to me much too weak in presence of the fact that it is precisely in the most trustworthy portions of the Acts that the matter is vouched for.
[2227] For a conjecture as to this see Mendelssohn in Acta soc. philol., Lips. v. 174-176. On the various ways generally in which the rights of Roman citizenship might be acquired, see Rein, art. “Civitas,” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. ii. 392 sqq. Winer, Realwörtb. i. 200, art. “Bürgerrecht.” On the special question as to how Paul became a Roman citizen, see the literature given in Wolf’s Curae phil. in Nov. Test., note on Acts 22:28. De Wette, Einl. in das N. T. § 119b. Credner, Einl. in das N. T. p. 288 sq. Winer’s Realwörtb. i. 200, ii. 212. Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T.’s, § 58. Wieseler, Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 61 sqq. Wold. Schmidt in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xi. 357.
[2228] There is the well-known fact of the massacre perpetrated by Mithridates, who in the year 88 B.C. ordered all the Roman citizens in Asia Minor to be put to death with their wives and children (see the passages for example in Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung des röm. Reichs, i. 26). Valerius Maximus estimates the number of the massacred at 80,000 (Valer. Max ix. 2, extern. iii.: Tarn hercule quam Mithridatem regem, qui una epistola lxxx. civium Romanorum in Asia per urbes negotiandi gratia dispersa interemit). Of course here it would seem to be natives of Italy that are in question. But we find scarcely forty years after this that the number of Roman citizens in Asia Minor was so large that the consul Lentulus was able in the year 49 B.C. to raise as many as two legions of them (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 4; for the passage, see note 144, above). Certainly in this instance it can hardly be only natives of Italy that are in view.
[2229] Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 13.
[2230] Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. 24. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 76 sq.
[2231] On these see Rein, art. “Civitas,” in Pauly’s Encycl. ii. 392 sqq. Winer, Realwörtb. i. 200, art “Bürgerrecht,” and the literature quoted by both.
[2232] See Acts 16:37 sqq., xxii. 25 sqq., and Pauly’s Real-Enc. under “Crux,” “Lex Porcia” and “Lex Sempronia.”
[2233] See Rein in Pauly’s Real-Enc. under “Appellatio” and “Provocatio.” Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses (1842), p. 675 sqq.
[2234] Acts 25:10 sqq., Acts 25:21; Acts 26:32. Pliny, Epist. x. 96 (al. 97): Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, quos quia cives Romani erant adnotavi in urbem remittendos. Geib, Getsh. des röm. Criminalprocesses, p. 251. Wieseler, Chronol des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 383 sqq. (who however confounds the claim put in by Paul with the appellatio proper). Overbeck, Erklärung der Apostelgesch. p. 429 iq. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 1 (1874), p, 246. That Roman citizens could insist on the procedure in question as a right is not perfectly certain. See, on the other hand, a monograph of Ruprechts just published.
In many Hellenistic cities the Jews, in virtue of their possessing the rights of citizenship, were on a level with the rest of the inhabitants. Of course in those communes they failed on an average to attain to a leading position. We should rather say that, as we have already seen, it was precisely this possessing of the rights of citizenship that led to the hostility and persecution to which they were so often exposed. At the same time there were many places, Egypt in particular, where at certain periods Jews also have been found to play a prominent part in public life. The first of the Ptolemies were on the whole favourably disposed toward them.[2235] Under some of the later Ptolemies again very important appointments were entrusted to them. Ptolemy VI. (Philopater) and his consort Cleopatra “committed the care of their entire kingdom to the hands of Jews, while it was the Jewish generals Onias and Dositheus that had command of the whole army.”[2236] Another Cleopatra, the daughter of the two royal personages just mentioned, when carrying on war against her son Ptolemy Lathurus, also appointed two Jewish generals, Chelkias and Ananias, to the chief command of her army.[2237] Likewise in the Roman period many wealthy Jews were still found to be playing a prominent part in public life in Alexandria. In particular we happen to know that the office of aldbarch, probably chief collector of customs on the Arabian side of the Nile, was repeatedly held by wealthy Jews, as for example by Alexander the brother of Philo the Philosopher, and later on by a certain person called Demetrius.[2238] With reference to this Josephus informs us that the Romans had allowed the Jews of Alexandria “to retain the responsible position that had been entrusted to them by the kings, namely the duty of watching the river.”[2239] There was a distinguished Alexandrian Jew of the name of Tiberius Alexander, a son of Alexander the alabarch just mentioned, who even rose to some of the highest positions in the Roman army, though at the sacrifice of the religion of his fathers.[2240] No doubt the Jews had grown to be an influential element in society even in Rome itself. But here they never succeeded in gaining the position they had attained in Egypt, the contrast between the Roman and Jewish natures being too strong and abrupt for that.[2241]
[2235] Joseph, Apion. ii. 4.
[2236] Apion. ii. 5: Ὁ δὲ Φιλομήτωρ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Κλεοπάτρα τὴν βασιλείαν ὄλην τὴν ἑαυτῶν Ἰουδαίοις ἐπιστεύσαν, καὶ οτρατηγοὶ πάσης τῆς δυνάμεως ἧσαν Ὀνίας καὶ Δοσίθεος Ἰουδαῖοι.
[2237] Antt. xiii. 10. 4, xiii. 1-2. Chelkias and Ananias were sons of the high priest Onias IV., who built the temple at Leontopolls.
[2238] Alexander the brother of Philo, Antt. xviii. 6. 3, 8. 1, xix. 5. 1, xx. 5. 2. Demetrius, Antt. xx. 7. 3. On the office of alabarch, comp. my article in the Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875, pp. 13-40, where the earlier literature is also given. Since that was written there fall to be added to the list, Gräts, Die jüdischen Ethnarchen oder Alabarchen in Alexandria (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1876, pp. 209 sqq., 241 sqq., 308 sqq.), who, while in essential points accepting my results, has nevertheless overlaid them with all manner of confusions. As the two alabarchs mentioned by Josephus happen to have been wealthy Jews, many have supposed the alabarch to have been the president of the whole Jewish community in Alexandria, and have therefore identified him with the Jewish ethnarch. But there is not the slightest warrant for this. I rather incline to think that I have shown to a demonstration that the ἀλαβάρχης (Edict. Just. xi. 2-3; Palladas, Anthol. graec., ed. Jacobs, vol. iii. p. 121; Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4267; a coin in Mionnet’s Description de médailles antiques, Suppl. vol. vi. p. 379) is identical with the ἀραβάρχης (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4751, 5076; Cod. Just. iv. 61. 9; Cicero, ad Atticunm, ii. 17; Juvenal, i. 130), and is the designation given to the chief collector of customs on the Arabian side of the Nile. See in particular Cod. Just. iv, 61. 9 (edict of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosiua): Usurpationem totius licentiae summovemus circa vectigal Arabarchiae per Aegyptum atque Augustamnicam constitutum, nihilque super transductionem animalium, quae sine praebitione solita minime permittenda est, temeritate per licentiam vindicari concedimus. The only difficulty in the way is that with regard to the inscription 4267 of Corp. Inscr. Graec. found in Lycia; and the coin of Teos (which I have not taken account of in my article). But in both instances the title may have been imported from Egypt.
[2239] Apion. ii. 5, fin.: Maximam vero eis fidem olim a regibus datam con-servare voluerunt, id est fluminis custodiam totiusque custodiae, nequaquam his rebus indignos esse judicantes. The words totiusque custodiae are in any case a corruption. Perhaps instead of custodiae (= φυλακῆς) we should read θαλάσσης. By custodia we are naturally to understand the watching with a view to the collecting of the customs. Comp. Caesar, Bell. Alexandr. c. xiii.: Erant omnibus ostiis Nili custodiae exigendi portorii causa dispositae. Naves veteres erant in occultis regiae navalibus, quibus multis annis ad navigandum non erant usi.
[2240] Antt. xx. 5. 2: τοῖς γὰρ πατρίοις οὐκ ἐνέμεινεν οὗτος ἔθεσιν. On Tiberius Alexander, comp. § 19, above.
[2241] Perhaps we may be allowed only further to add, that among the Jews who were crucified by Florus in Jerusalem in the year 66 A.D. there were also some who held the rank of Roman knighthood (Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 9). Their execution is justly described by Josephus as a serious violation of their rights.
4. Their Religious Life
The constant contact of the Judaism of the dispersion with Gentile culture could not fail to influence its internal development as well. Above all, in those places where, from their wealth and social standing, the Jews were in a position to avail themselves of the educative agencies of their time—as in Alexandria in particular—did the Judaism of the dispersion follow a direction essentially different from that of Palestine. In the dispersion the cultured Jew was not only a Jew, but a Greek as well, alike in respect of language, education, and habits, and by the sheer force of circumstances he was impelled to find ways and means of harmonizing and combining Jewish and Hellenistic idiosyncrasies (for more on this point see § 33 and 34). But strictly speaking this can only be said with regard to the more highly educated among them, while even in their case it was always the original Jewish element of their character that predominated. This latter was true, in a still higher degree, of the great mass of the Jewish people. However much those of the dispersion may have adopted the Greek language as their vernacular, however defective and lax their observance of the law might have seemed in the eyes of the Pharisees, however much they may have given up as unimportant what to the Pharisee appeared both essential and necessary, still in the depths of their heart they were Jews notwithstanding, and felt themselves to be in all essential respects in unison with their brethren in Palestine.
One of the principal means employed for preserving and upholding the faith of their fathers among the communities of the dispersion was the regular meetings for worship in the synagogues on the Sabbath. There cannot be a doubt that in the dispersion as well those meetings took place wherever an organized community of Jews was found to exist. We learn from Philo that “in all the towns thousands of houses of instruction were open where discernment and moderation and skill and justice and all virtues generally were taught.”[2242] In the course of his travels through Asia Minor and Greece the Apostle Paul everywhere met with Jewish synagogues; as for example in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:14), Iconium (Acts 14:1), Ephesus (18:19, 26, 19:8), Thessalonica (17:1), Berea (17:10), Athens (17:17), Corinth (18:4, 7). Josephus mentions synagogues as being in Caesarea and Dora on the Phoenician coast.[2243] Jewish προσευχαί are met with even upon inscriptions in the Crimea.[2244] Then in those towns in which the Jews were rather more numerous there were several synagogues. This was so in the case of Damascus (Acts 9:20), of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:5), while in Alexandria there was quite a multitude of them.[2245] Josephus singles out as being particularly elegant the synagogue at Antioch (i.e. the chief synagogue there, for in any case there was a considerable number of them in that town as well). To this latter the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes had presented the sacred vessels of brass (and these alone, not the valuable gold and silver ones) which Antiochus had carried off from the temple at Jerusalem, while the Jews of Antioch themselves were at the expense of providing cups of a more valuable kind in order still more to enhance the beauty of their sanctuary (τὸ ἱερόν).[2246] In Rome there was a large number of synagogues as early as the time of Augustus, as Philo testifies throughout his works generally. Further, the names of the various syuagogal communities have been handed down to us through the medium of the inscriptions.[2247] Consequently wherever Jews were found to be living, there the law and the prophets were read and expounded every Sabbath and the religious ordinances observed. The language employed in public worship was, as a rule, undoubtedly the Greek.[2248] The truth is Hebrew was so little current among the Jews of the dispersion that not a single instance, has been met with of its use upon a tombstone. At all events the inscriptions in the Roman catacombs (dating from the first centuries of our era) are composed almost exclusively in Greek or Latin (the latter less frequently), or at most with short postscripts in Hebrew. It is not till we come down to the epitaphs of Venosa (dating from somewhere about the sixth century of our era) that we see how Hebrew begins to come gradually into use.[2249] But among these too it is Greek or Latin that is still most frequently met with. If even for such monumental purposes Hebrew was not in use, then much less likely is it to have been so in the oral addresses at the meetings for public worship. The Rabbinical authorities in Palestine have expressly sanctioned the use of any language whatever in repeating the Shemah, the Shemoneh Esreh, and the grace at meals; while it is only in the case of the priestly benediction, and a few special passages of Scripture, such as the formula repeated in connection with the offering of the firstlings and with the chaliza that the use of Hebrew is absolutely insisted upon.[2250] A certain R. Levi bar Chaitha once heard the Shemah repeated in Greek (אליניסתין) in Caesarea.[2251] Then the writing of the Holy Scriptures in Greek is expressly sanctioned, while here too, as before, it is only in the case of several passages composed for certain specific purposes, such as the tephillin and mesusoth, that the use of Hebrew is insisted on.[2252] If therefore, in oral address or written compositions, the use of Hebrew was obligatory only in the case of certain passages, then one should say that, according to the Rabbinical view, it must also have been considered legitimate to read the Scriptures at the meetings for public worship in some other language, say in Greek. But several of the Fathers have distinctly assured us that, as matter of fact, it was the Greek translation of the Bible that was used in the synagogues, and therefore during public worship.[2253] At the same time it is quite possible that on such occasions the Scriptures were read in Hebrew as well as in Greek, as was subsequently the case in the time of the Emperor Justinian.[2254] But if we reflect how the Apostle Paul for example was familiar only with the Greek translation of the Old Testament,[2255] we can hardly suppose it probable that there was any such simultaneous use of both the Hebrew and the Greek text.
[2242] Philo, De septenario, c. vi. (Mang. ii. 282 = Tischendorf, Philonea, p. 23). For the passage itself, see note 113, § 27, above.
[2243] Caesarea, Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 4-5. Dora, Antt. xix. 6. 3.
[2244] Corp. Inser. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1004 sq. Addenda, n. 2114b, 2114bb.
[2245] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 20 (Mang. ii. 565): πολλαὶ δὲ εῒσι καθʼ ἕκαστον τιμῆμα τῆς πόλεως.
[2246] Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3.
[2247] Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, § 23 (Mang. ii. 568 sq.). For the passage itself, see note 133, above. On the various names of the synagogal communities of Rome, see above, p. 247 sq.
[2248] On this and as partly pro and partly contra, comp. Lightfoot, Horao hebr. in Epis. I. ad Corinthios, Addenda ad Cap. xiv. (Opp. ii. 933-940; he questions the use of the Septuagint in the public services). Hody, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, pp. 224-228 (in answer to Lightfoot). Diodati, De Christo graece loquente (Neapoli 1767), pp. 108-110. Waehner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, i. § 258. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 56 sqq. Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. p. 269 sq.
[2249] This is a circumstance to which Askoli in particular (Inscrizion inedite, 1880) has drawn attention. Comp. my review in the Theol Litztg. 1880, p. 485 sq.
[2250] Mishna Sota, vii. 1. 2. Comp. vol. i. p. 10.
[2251] Jer. Sota, vii. fol. 21b. See the passage for example in Boxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 104 (under אליניסתין). Lightfoot, Opp. ii. 937. I evy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. i. 88.
[2252] Megilla i 8: “Between the Holy Scriptures and the tephillin or mesusoth the only difference is this, that the former may be written in any language, whereas the tephillin and mesusoth must be written in Assyrian (אשורית, i.e. in Hebrew square characters). Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel says: likewise the Holy Scriptures are allowed to be written only in Greek.”
[2253] Justin. Apolog. i. 31: ἔμειναν αἱ βίβλοι καὶ παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις μέχρι τοῦ δεῦρο, καὶ πανταχοῦ παρὰ πᾶσίν εἰσιν Ἰουδαίοις, οἵ καὶ ἀναγινώσκοντες οὐ συνιᾶσι τὰ εἰρημένα. Comp. also Dial. c. Tryph. c. lxxii. Tertullian, Apologet. c. xviii.: Hodie apud Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis litteris exhibentur. Sed et Judaei palam lectitant. Vectigalis libertas; vulgo aditur sabbatis omnibus. Pseudo Justin. Cohort. ad Graec. (third century A.D.) c. xiii.: Εἰ δέ τις φάσκοι … μὴ ἡμῖν τὰς βίβλους ταύτας ἀλλὰ Ἰουδαίοις προσήκειν, διὰ τὸ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν σώζεσθαι κ.τ.λ. Ibid.: ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγῆς ταύτας ἀξιοῦμεν προκομίζεσθαι In all those passages the Greek translation of the Old Testament is expressly referred to. On the keeping of the Holy Scriptures in safe custody in the synagogues, see above, p. 74 sq.
[2254] Justinian, Novell. cxlvi., where the emperor states in the preamble that he has heard ὡς οἱ μὲν μόνης ἔχουται τῆς ἑβραΐδος φωνῆς καὶ αὐτῇ κεχρῆσθαι περὶ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσιν βούλονται, οἱ δὲ καὶ τὴν Ἑλληνίδα προσλαμβάνειν ἀξιοῦσι, καὶ πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ὑπὲρ τούτου πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς στασιάζουσιν.
[2255] This has been demonstrated by Kautzsch. De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo apottolo allegatis, Lips. 1869.
Considering how rigidly Jewish worship was centralized in Jerusalem, the existence of the Jewish temple at Leontopolis cannot but strike us as a somewhat remarkable phenomenon. In the time of Antiochus V. Eupater (164-162 B.C.), Onias IV., the son of the high priest Onias III., finding that there was no prospect of his succeeding to the high-priesthood in Palestine, came to Egypt where he was cordially welcomed by Ptolemy VI. Philometer and his consort Cleopatra. The king placed at his disposal in Leontopolis in the province of Heliopolis a dilapidated temple which had previously been dedicated to the ἀγρία Βούβαστις.[2256] This ruin Onias proceeded to rebuild, and transformed it into a Jewish sanctuary after the model of the temple in Jerusalem, though smaller and plainer and with numerous deviations in regard to details. Now as there also happened to he a sufficient number of priests already at hand a regular Jewish temple service was at once instituted, a service which continued without interruption from that date (therefore from somewhere about 160 B.C.) till the destruction of Jerusalem, after which, like its prototype, it was closed by the Romans (73 A.D.).[2257] Of course the learned doctors of Palestine never looked upon the services of this temple as legitimate worship, nor did they recognise the sacrifices offered in it as valid except to a very limited extent.[2258] But even the Egyptian Jews themselves were not satisfied merely with the worship in their adopted country, but still kept up their connection with Jerusalem. In common with all other Jews they made pilgrimages to Jerusalem,[2259] while their priests on getting married always had their wife’s pedigree authenticated in the Holy City.[2260]
[2256] The locality is most minutely defined in Antt. xiii. 3. 2: τὸ ἐν Λεοντοπόλει τοῦ Ἡλιοπολίτου ἱερὸν συμπεπτωκός … προσαγορευόμενον δὲ τῆς ἀγρίας Βουβάστεως. A similar precise fixing of the spot may be found in what is said Antt. xiii. 3. 1. Everywhere else Josephus merely mentions in a general way that the temple stood “in the province of Heliopolis” (Antt. xii. 9. 7, xiii. 10. 4, xx. 10; Bell. Jud. i. 1. 1, vii. 10. 3). In one passage only is it further added that the place on which it stood was 180 stadia from Memphis (Bell. Jud. vii. 10. 3). Now as we know from other sources that Leontopolis formed a province of itself lying more to the north than Heliopolis (Strabo, xvii. 1. 19, p. 802; Pliny, v. 9. 49; Ptolemaeus, iv. 5. 51), it follows that the Leontopolis here spoken of must be another one otherwise unknown to us and lying in the province of Heliopolis. As affording a clue towards a precise identifying of the spot, the following facts may be subjoined. Memphis stood on the southern point of the Delta. To the north of it some 24 miles off and on the eastern side of the Delta lay Heliopolis (see Itinerar. Antonini, ed. Parthey et Pinder, 1848, p. 73). The distance as here stated corresponds pretty closely with the 180 stadia = 22½ miles given by Josephus. But the Itinerarlum Antonini again mentions a place called Vicus Judaeorum at a distance of 22+12 = 34 miles to the north-east of Heliopolis (Itinerar. Antonini, ed. Parthey et Pinder, p. 75; the distances as given at p. 73 are somewhat greater; on the situation of the place, see Menke, Atlas antiquus, map xxx.). One is tempted to identify the place here in question with the site of Oniasʾ temple, for it may easily enough have belonged to the province of Heliopolis; besides this identification is further favoured by the circumstance of the province of Bubastus being near by. But as this Vicus Judaeorum was as far as 24+34 = 58 miles (therefore 464 stadia) from Memphis, we are bound to assume that Josephus must have been expressing himself in very vague terms, and that his 180 stadia were not meant to represent the distance between Memphis and the temple of Onias, but merely that between Memphis and the capital of the province of Heliopolis (the passage as it occurs in Bell. Jud. vii. 10. 3 runs thus: δίδωσιν αὐτῷ χώραν ἑκατὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀγδοήκοντα σταδίους ἀπέχουσαν Μέμφεως· νομὸς δʼ οὗτος Ἡλιουπολίτης καλεῖται). The “land of Onias” (ἡ Ὀνίου λεγομένη χώρα), which was inhabited by Jews, is likewise mentioned in Antt. xiv. 8. 1 = Bell. Jud. i. 9. 4, and that as lying between Pelusium and Memphis, which accords with the foregoing statements. Different from this again is the “so-called camp of the Jews,” τὸ καλούμενον Ἰουδαίων στρατόπεδον, Antt. xiv. 8. 2 = Bell. Jud. i. 9. 4, on the other side of the Delta and to the north-west of Memphis (the army of Mithridates and Antipater in hastening to the assistance of Caesar marched from Pelnsium through the “land of Onias” on to Memphis and thence round the Deltä to the “Jews’ camp”). Lastly, in the Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, chap. xxv. (ed. Böoking, i. 69), a Castra Judaeorum is mentioned as being in the province of Augustatnnica. Now as Augustamnica is the land to the east of the Delta (see my article on the alabarchs in the Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875, pp. 26-28), this Castra Judaeorum must therefore be identical with the Vicus Judaeorum. Comp. in general, Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 354 (article “Judaeorum Vicus”), where however the Judaeorum Vicus is erroneously represented as standing to the south-east instead of to the north-east of Heliopolis.
[2257] See in general, Joseph. Antt. xii. 9. 7, xiii. 3. 1-3, 10. 4, xx. 10; Bell. Jud. i. 1. 1, vii. 10. 2-4. Cassel, De templo Oniae Heliopolitano, Brem. 1730 (also in Dissertationum variorum de antiquitatibus sacris et profanis fasciculus novus, ed. Schlaeger, 1743, pp. 1-48). Herzfeld, iii. pp. 460 sqq., 657-564. Jost, i. pp. 116-120. Giätz, iii. 3rd ed. p. 33 sq. Ewald, iv. p. 462 sqq. Wieseler, Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 498 sqq. Untersuchung über den Hebräerbrief, ii. 75 sqq. Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 665 sqq. Frankel, Einiges zur Forschung über den Onias-Tempel (Monatsschr. für Gesch. and Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 273-277). Jastrow, Einiges über den Hohenpriester Onias IV. in Aegypten und die Gründung des tempels zu Heliopolis (Monatsschr. 1872, pp. 150-155). Lucius, Der Essenismus, pp. 82-86. Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s, § 488. Hamburger, Real-Enc. part ii. art. “Oniastempel.”
[2258] Mishna, Menachoth xiii. 10: “When any one vows to offer a burnt-offering, be must offer it in the temple. If he did so in the temple of Onias he would not fulfil his duty. If he said: I wish to offer it in the temple of Onias, he is bound nevertheless to offer it in the temple. But if he did so in the temple of Onias, still he would fulfil his duty. R. Simon says that would not be in the least a burnt-offering. If any one vows to be a Nazarite he must shave off his hair in the temple, and if he were to do it in the temple of Onias he would not be fulfilling his duty. If he made the vow on the condition that the shaving of the hair was to take place in the temple of Onias, he is nevertheless bound to have it done in that temple. But if he did it in the temple of Onias it would be sufficient. R. Simon: he would not be a Nazarite. The priests who have ministered in the temple of Onias are not at liberty to minister in the temple at Jerusalem.… They are like those with some bodily defect; they get their portions and partake of the offerings, but they are not to be allowed to sacrifice.” In the common printed text the name of Onias is written חוניו (Chonjo). Two of the best authorities, cod. de Rossi 138, and the Cambridge manuscript edited by Lo we, 1883, uniformly read instead נחוניון (Nechonjon).
[2259] Philo, De providentia, quoted by Euseb. in Praep. evang. viii. 16. 64, ed. Gaisford (= Philonis Opp. ed. Mang. ii. 646); and in Armenian in Aucher’s Philonis Judaei sernones tres, p. 116.
[2260] Apion. i. 7.
In common with the law generally, the prescriptions regarding the temple tribute and the pilgrimages to Jerusalem on festival occasions were as far as possible complied with by the Jews of the dispersion. This was particularly the case with respect to the tribute. Apropos of the plundering of the temple by Crassus, Josephus remarks that it was not to be wondered at that such a large amount of treasure should have accumulated there, for from an early date every Jew and every proselyte throughout the world, in Europe and Asia alike, had been paying tribute to the temple.[2261] Philo gives us the following details as to the way in which the temple tribute was collected and remitted to Jerusalem:[2262] “The revenue of the temple is derived not merely from a few lands, but from other and much more copious sources which can never be destroyed. Because as long as the human race endures so long will the sources of the temple revenue continue to exist, seeing that they will last as long as the world itself. For it is prescribed that every Jew who is over twenty years of age is to pay so much tribute annually.… But as might be expected in the caso of so numerous a people, the amount thus contributed is very large. In almost every town there is an office for the collection of the sacred funds and into which the tribute is paid. Then at particular seasons these funds are entrusted to men of good standing whose duty it is to convey them to Jerusalem. For this purpose it is always those of the highest rank that are chosen, as a kind of guarantee that that which is every Israelite’s hope may reach the Holy City untampered with.” That the withdrawal of those sums from the Roman provinces was frequently objected to we have already had occasion to mention. Flaccus for example had ordered the sums thus collected in Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyttium, and Pergamum to be confiscated. From the time of Caesar onwards however the withdrawal of this money has everywhere been sanctioned, even from Rome itself[2263] no less than from Asia Minor[2264] and Cyrenaica,[2265] and of course from Egypt also, as we have seen from the words of Philo already quoted. But there was no quarter from which the money poured in so abundantly as from Babylon and the districts beyond the Euphrates. Here the system of collecting and remitting was of a thoroughly organized kind. The head offices into which in the first instance the tribute (namely τό τε δίδραχμον … καὶ ὁπόσα ἄλλα ἀναθήματα) was paid were in the two cities of Nisibis and Nehardea. Then at a particular date they were conveyed from these places to Jerusalem, many thousands of people being entrusted with this task so as to secure the sacred treasury against the attacks of the Parthian bandits.[2266] After the destruction of the temple the sacred tribute had necessarily to undergo at least some modification or other. The didrachmon was converted into a Roman tax, while the other items of tribute could from the nature of the case be no longer payable (comp. § 24, notes [2267] and [2268] But even in the altered state of things the Jews continued to evince their internal union by imposing a voluntary tax upon themselves. A new central authority, viz. the patriarchate, was created, and to this a portion at least of the sacred tribute required by their law was handed over year by year. Under this new arrangement the money was collected by individuals sent out by the patriarchate for the purpose, viz. the so-called apostoli (see above, p. 269).
[2261] Antt. xiv. 7. 2 Θαυμάσῃ δὲ μηδεὶς εἰ τοσοῦτος ἦν πλοῦτος ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ ἱερῷ, πάντων τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην Ἰουδαίων καὶ σεβομένων τὸν θεόν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης εἰς αὐτὸ συμφερόντων ἐκ πολλῶν πάνυ χρόνων. On the question as to what items of tribute had to be paid by the Jews of the dispersion, see vol. i. p. 247.
[2262] Philo, De monarchia, book ii. § 3 (Mang. ii. 224).
[2263] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 23 (Mang, ii. 568 sq.).
[2264] Antt. xvi. 6. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 40 (Mang. ii. 592).
[2265] Antt. xvi. 6. 5.
[2266] Antt. xviii. 9. 1. Comp. Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, § 31 (Mang, ii. 578). Shekalim iii. 4 (the didrachmae tax from Babylon and Media).
[2267] It is said in Terumoth ii. 4 with reference to the terumah: “Wherever there happens to be a priest, there the terumah of the choicest portions is paid to him; but where there is no priest a terumah is to be paid of something that will keep.” According to Challa iv. 8, 9, the Challa, things banned, the first-born, the ransom for first-born sons, the ransom for the first-born of the ass, the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach (on the occasion of killing an animal for ordinary use), the portion of the fleece at the sheep-shearing, and others, could be given to any priest no matter where. Hence it was that the terumah, for example, and the. tithe, and the first-born continued to be exacted even after the destruction of the temple, Bikkurim ii. 3; Shekalim viii. 8.
[2268] We have evidence of the first-mentioned fact in the shape of a coin belonging to the reign of Nerva with the words “fisci Judaici calumnia sublata” inscribed upon it (Madden’s History of Jewish Coinage, p. 199). This cannot be taken as alluding to the repeal of the tax itself, but merely to the fact that it was no longer to be imposed in a form so offensive to the Jews, and therefore, of course, that it was no longer to go towards the support of heathen worship. We find that the tax itself was still being paid subsequent to the period here in question; comp. Appian. Syr. l., and especially Origen’s Epist. ad African. sec. xiv. (ed. Lommatzsch, xvii. 44): καὶ νῦν γοῦν Ῥωμαίων βασιλευόντων, καὶ Ἰουδαίων τὸ δίδραχμον αὐτοῖς τελούντων. The Rabbinical writers again have decided that the payment of the half-shekel tax ceases to be binding when the temple ceases to exist (Shekalim viii. 8).
But there was nothing that contributed so much to cement the bond of union between the dispersion and the mother country as the regular pilgrimages which Jews from all quarters of the world were in the habit of making to Jerusalem on festival occasions. “Many thousands of people from many thousands of towns made pilgrimages to the temple at every festival, some by land, some by sea, and coming from the east and the west, from the north and the south.”[2269] The number of Jews that were usually assembled in Jerusalem at the time of the feasts has been estimated by Josephus at as high a figure as 2,700,000, the inhabitants of Jerusalem being of course included.[2270]
[2269] Philo, De monarchia, book ii. § 1 (Mang. ii. 223): Μυρίοι γὰρ ἀπὸ μυρίων ὅσων πόλεων οἱ μὲν διὰ γῆς, οἱ δὲ διὰ θαλάττης, ἐξ ἀνατολῆς καὶ δύσεως καὶ ἄρκτου καὶ μεσημβρίας, καθʼ ἑκάστην ἑορτὴν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καταίρουσιν. On the pilgrimages from Babylon, comp. besides the passage already quoted, viz. Antt. xviii. 9. 1, also Antt. xvii. 2. 2. Mishna, Joma vi. 4; Taanith i. 3.
[2270] Bell. Jud. vi. 9. 3. Comp. Grätz on this in the Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1871, pp. 200-207. The passage in Acts 2:9-11 does not apply here, for according to 2:5 it is not the festival pilgrims that are in view there, but foreign Jews who had their stated residence in Jerusalem.
5. The Proselytes
As forming an essential element in the physiognomy of the Judaism of the dispersion, we must also mention that numerous body of adherents who in every quarter joined themselves to the Jewish communities and were known under the designation of proselytes.
On a mere cursory glance it seems strange that Jewish propagandism should have been at all crowned with anything like success among Gentile populations, for the feeling on the part of the Graeco-Roman world toward the Jews was by no means of a sympathetic character. We have already seen how, in the Hellenistic towns, the Jews were everywhere regarded with disfavour, how not only the mass of the people but the authorities themselves made repeated attempts to interfere with them in the free observance of their own religion (see above, pp. 260 sq., 275 sq.). Again, the opinions expressed regarding them in Greek and Roman literature are for the most part of a highly disparaging kind.[2271] By the majority of the educated people of that time the Jewish religion was looked upon as a barbara superstitio.[2272] Men did not hesitate to believe and circulate against them the most ridiculous and most abominable stories, stories that had been hatched above all by the literati of Alexandria. Many of the wretched allegations in question were of course due only to ignorance and not to malevolence. It was so for example when some inferred from the appellation Judaei that they belonged originally to Crete and derived their name from Mount Ida,[2273] or when others, in consequence of the famous golden vine in the temple[2274] and certain observances at the feast of Tabernacles, were betrayed into supposing that they worshipped Bacchus, a view about which there is a somewhat protracted discussion in Plutarch,[2275] while Tacitus scouts it by simply remarking that: Liber festos laetosque ritus posuit, Judaeorum mos absurdus sordidusque.[2276] But the majority of the things alleged against the Jews were wicked slanders which for the most part owed their origin to the prolific soil of Alexandria. We find that the exodus from Egypt above all had, in the course of time, been worked up into a complete romance. The foundation of this had been already laid by Manetho (or an interpolator), and, after being further developed by the Alexandrian literati Chäremon, Lysimachus, Apion, it was taken up by Tacitus and Justin and retailed with sundry alterations and additions.[2277] The substance of this story is that a number of persons suffering from leprosy had been expelled from the country by an Egyptian king—sometimes called Amenophis and sometimes Bocchoris—and sent to the stone quarries or into the wilderness. Among them there happened to be a priest of Heliopolis of the name of Moses (whose real name, according to Manetho, was Osarsiph). This Moses prevailed upon the lepers to renounce the worship of the gods of Egypt and to adopt a new religion which he offered them. Under his leadership they then quitted the country, and after many vicissitudes and the perpetration of numerous disgraceful acts they reached the district around Jerusalem, which they proceeded to subdue and take permanent possession of. To the various incidents with which this exodus was accompanied, Tacitus has no difficulty in tracing the origin of pretty nearly all the habits and usages of the Jews, whether of those that are real or of those that are only imputed. Apion the grammarian had already maintained that the Jews were in the habit of paying divine honours to an ass’s head.[2278] Tacitus retails this as though he believed it to be true (notwithstanding the fact that immediately after he alludes to the absence of images in connection with their worship), and attributes it to the circumstance that, while in the wilderness, the Jews were indebted to a herd of wild asses for drawing their attention to some copious springs of water.[2279] The abstinence from the use of swine’s flesh he accounts for by the fact that this animal is peculiarly liable to the itch, therefore to that very disease on account of which the Jews were once so severely maltreated. The frequent fasting is alleged to have been by way of commemorating the starvation from which they suffered during their journey through the wilderness. The use of unleavened bread, again, is supposed to be an evidence of the fact of their having stolen corn at the time of the exodus. And lastly, it is assumed that their observance of the seventh day of the week is due to the circumstance that this was the day on which their toils came to an end, and that, as they found it so pleasant to have nothing to do, they also consecrated the seventh year to idleness.[2280]
[2271] On this comp. Meier (Fr. Carol), Judaica seu veterum scriptorum profanorum de rebus Judaicis fragmenta, Jenae 1832. Schmitthenner (Chr. J.), De rebus Judaicis quaecunque prodiderunt ethnici scriptores Graeci et Latini, Weilburg 1844. Gieseler, Kirchengesch. (4th ed.) i. 1. 50-52. Winer, Realwörtb. i. 638 sq., note. Müller (J. G.), Kritische Untersuchung der taciteischen Berichte über den Ursprung der Juden, Hist. v. 2 sqq. (Stud. u. Krit. 1843, pp. 893-958). Frankel, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judentums, 1856, pp. 81-94. Ibid. 1860, pp. 125-142. Giles, Heathen Records to the Jewish Scripture History; containing all the extracts from the Greek and Latin writers in which the Jews and Christians are named, London 1856. Goldschmidt, De Judaeorum apud Romanos condicione, Halis Sax. 1866. Gösser, Die Berichte des classischen Alterthums über die Religion der Juden (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1868, pp. 565-637). Hausrath, Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. i. pp. 149-156, iii. pp. 383-892. Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, iii, 1871, pp.513-515. Scheuffgen, Unde Romanorum de Judaeis opiniones conflatae sint, Köln 1870, Program for the Rheinische Ritter-Akademie of Bedburg. Gill, Notices of the Jews and their Country by the classic writers of antiquity, 2nd ed. London 1872. Geiger (Ludov.), Quid de Judaeorum moribus atque institutis scriptoribus Romanis persuasum fuerit, Berol. 1872. Grätz, Ursprung der zwei Verlamdungen gegen das Judenthum vom Eselskultus und von der Lieblosigkeit gegen Andersgläubige (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1872, pp. 193-206). Rösch, Caput asininum (Stud. u. Krit. 1882, pp. 523-544). Schuhl, Les préventions des Romains contre la religion juive, Paris 1883, Durlacher. Hild, Les juifs à Rome devant l’opinion et dans la littérature (Revue des études juives, vol. viii. 1834, pp. 1-37, and sequel).
[2272] Cicero, Pro Flacco, chap, xxviii.
[2273] Tacit. Hist. v. 2.
[2274] Mishna, Middoth iii. 8. Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 3; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 4. Tacitus, Hist. v. 5.
[2275] Plutarch, Sympos. iv. 5.
[2276] Tacitus, Hist. v. 5.
[2277] Manetho in Joseph. contra Apion. i. 26; Chäremon, ibid. i. 32; Apion, ibid. ii. 2. Tacitus, Hist. v. 3. Justin, xxxvi. 2. For more on the literary history, see below, § 33.
[2278] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 7.
[2279] Tacitus, Hist. v. 3-4. On the ass-worship, comp. further Damocritus in Suida’s Lex. under Δαμόκριτος (Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 377). Tertullian, Apologet. c. xvi.; ad nationes, i. 11. Minucius Felix, Octav. c. ix. Rösch, Caput asininum (Stud. u. Krit. 1882, p. 523 sqq.), and the literature quoted there.
[2280] Tacitus, Hist. v. 4: Sue se abstinent merito cladis, qua ipsos scabies quondam turpaverat, cui id animal obnoxium. Longam olim famen crebris adhuc jejuniis fatentur; et raptarum frugum argumentum panis Judaicus nullo fermento detinetur. Septimo die otium placuisse ferunt, quia, is finem laborum tulerit; dein blandiente inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae datum.
There were three things in particular which the educated world of the time made the butt of its jeers, viz. the abstinence from the use of swine’s flesh, the strict observance of the Sabbath, and the worship without images. While in Plutarch it is seriously debated whether the abstinence from the use of swine’s flesh may not be due to the fact of divine honours being paid to this animal,[2281] Juvenal again jokes about the land where “the clemency of the days of old has accorded to pigs the privilege of living to a good old age,” and where “swine’s flesh is as much valued as that of man.” Then as for the observance of the Sabbath, the satirist can see nothing in it but indolence and sloth, while he looks upon Jewish worship as being merely an adoring of the clouds and the skies.[2282] It would appear again that contemporaries with a philosophical training had, in like manner, no appreciation whatever of the worshipping of God in spirit. It was not merely the literary swashbucklers of Alexandria who delighted in urging against the Jews the charge of refusing to worship the native divinities and the emperors,[2283] but we even find a man like Tacitus observing with singular coolness and not without a touch of censure, that:[2284] Judaei menti sola unumque numen intelligunt: profanes qui deum imagines mortalibus materiis in species hominum effingant; summum illud et aeternum neque imitabile neque interiturum. Igitur nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis sistunt; non regibus haec adulatio non Caesaribus honor. And lastly, Pliny speaks of the Jews as a gens contumelia numinum insignia.[2285]
[2281] Plutarch, Sympos. iv. 5.
[2282] Juvenal, Sat. vi. 160: Et vetus indulget senibus clementia porcis.
[2283] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 6.
[2284] Tacitus, Hist. v. 5
[2285] Pliny, Hist. Nat. xiii. 4-46.
Ibid. xiv. 98: Nec distare putant humana carne suillam.
Ibid. xiv. 105-106: Sed pater in causa, cui septima quaeque fuit lux Ignava et partem vitae non attigit ullam.
Ibid. xiv. 97: Nil praeter nubes et caeli numen adorant.
But there was nothing that did so much to awaken the dislike of the Graeco-Roman world as that wall of rigid separation which the Jew had erected between himself and all the rest of mankind. And just at a time when the worldwide rule of the Romans and the levelling influences of Hellenism were pulling down more and more the ancient barriers that separated nation from nation, it must have been felt to be doubly annoying that the Jews should be the only people who insisted on holding aloof from this process of universal amalgamation. Apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium, says Tacitus;[2286] while Juvenal alleges against them, and not altogether without reason, that if asked to show the way to any place they always refused to do so except to those of their own faith, and that if any one happened to be looking for a well they would not take him to it unless he had been circumcised.[2287] When it was commonly alleged in Alexandria that the Jews had taken an oath never to show kindness to a stranger (Gentile),[2288] or that they even went the length of offering a Greek in sacrifice every year,[2289] these were no doubt ridiculous slanders. But still there is an element of truth underlying the statement of Tacitus, in which he affirms that the first things Jewish proselytes are taught to do are to despise the gods, to repudiate their nationality, and to disparage parents, children and brothers.[2290] The truth is, it was just this that formed the bright as well as the dark side of Judaism, the fact namely that, as a religious community, it maintained its exclusiveness with such uncompromising rigour.
[2286] Tacitus, Hist. v. 5.
[2287] Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 108-104:
[2288] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 10.
[2289] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 8. Comp. also Damocritus in Suidas’ Lex. under Δαμόκριτος (Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 377). J. G. Müller, Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen Apion (1877), p. 263 sqq. As is well known, similar charges (as for example that the Jews murdered people who were not of their own faith to use their blood for sacrificial purposes) continue to be alleged against them down to the present day. Christians were also charged with holding Θυέστεια δεῖπνα (circular of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, quoted by Euseb. H. E. v. 1. 14. Athenagoras, Suppl. c. iii. Justin. Martyr. Apol. ii. 12. Minucius Felix, Octav. c. ix. Tertullian, Apolog. c. viii.; ad nationes, i. 7. Origen, contra Cels. vi. 27).
[2290] Tacitus, Hist. v. 5: Contemnere deos, exuere patriam, parentes, liberos, fratres vilia habere.
Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,
Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.
The feelings cherished toward the Jews throughout the entire Graeco-Roman world were not so much those of hatred as of pure contempt. The prevailing tone that runs through the whole estimate of Judaism, as given by Tacitus, is that of the profoundest contempt, the contempt of the proud Roman for this despectissima pars servientium, for this teterrima gens.[2291] Those feelings have found their bitterest expression in the words of Marcus Aurelius as recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus: Ille enim cum Palaestinam transiret Aegyptum petens, Judaeorum faetentium et tumultantium saepe taedio percitus dolenter dicitur exclamasse: O Marcomanni, O Quadi, O Sarmatae, tandem alios vobis inertiores inveni.[2292]
[2291] Tacitus, Hist. v. 8.
[2292] Ammian. Marcellin. xxii. 5.
It may be asked, and that not without reason, how it was possible, if such were the feelings of the Graeco-Roman world, that Jewish propagandism should have met with any success at all. In order to understand this, three things must be borne in mind. (1) In the course of their missionary efforts the Jews to all appearance understood above all things how to present Judaism in a form calculated to recommend it even to a Greek or a Roman. They took care to keep in the background, as not being of the nature of an essential, whatever was certain at first to appear odd or to have a repelling effect, while they laid most stress upon those points in regard to which they felt they could reckon on a sympathetic appreciation of them in the case of many at least; this they did above all with respect to their idea of God. Judaism is the truly rational religion, rejecting as it does the notion of a multiplicity of gods with circumscribed spheres of action, and worshipping the one Lord and Creator of all things and Him only, even that Almighty and righteous God who is omnipotent, and who recompenses every one strictly according to his moral conduct. Nor, like a shortsighted heathenism, does it represent the Divine Being in the finite form of a man or even of an animal, but it rejects every material representation of Him, and makes the invisible Lord of heaven and earth, who rules over all and who transcends all the limits of the material world, the sole object of its worship. That it was upon these points that the greatest stress was laid, and that it was in this form that, in the first instance, Judaism was presented by the Hellenistic Jews to their Gentile fellow-citizens, is what any one may be convinced of who will only give a cursory glance at the writings of Philo and the Jewish Sibylline books. Those people (the Jews) are proudly conscious that they are the truly enlightened ones of the earth, who, as regards religious matters at least, rank highest in the scale of civilisation. And it was surely impossible that such a consciousness should not ultimately produce its due effect. Hence one can understand how Strabo for example should be found to speak of Moses with a certain degree of sympathy; for the Jewish source—whether written or oral—on which his narrative is based, has obviously presented the Jewish legislator to him in the light of a genuine Stoic philosopher. Moses taught, he informs us, “that the Egyptians had erred in making the divinity to resemble animals; that such a thing was not done by the Libyans, nor even by the Greeks, who represented Him under a human form. For that alone is God which embraces us all as well as the earth and the sea, which we name heaven, and world, and the nature of things (εἴη γὰρ ἓν τοῦτο μόνον θεὶς τὸ περιέχον ἡμᾶς ἅπαντας καὶ γῆν καὶ θάλατταν, ὃ καλοῦμεν οὐρανὸν καὶ κόσμον καὶ τὴν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν). But what man in his senses would venture to make an image of that, an image only resembling something around us? Rather must the making of images be given up altogether, and a worthy temple being consecrated to Him, let Him be worshipped without any image whatever.[2293] It is true that for all that Strabo did not become a Jew, for he knew too well that the Jewish religion had subsequently deteriorated owing to so many superstitious elements having been mixed up with it.[2294] But if Jewish apologists now knew, as they did, how to give a profounder meaning and import even to those “superstitious” elements, may it not be that many a one felt himself attracted by them ? (2) A further circumstance which was well calculated to win adherents to Judaism was the fact that the Jewish religion aimed at the practical realization of a moral and happy life. Strictly speaking, there was no religion from which such an aim could be said to be entirely absent. But in the case of Judaism it assumed a much more definite, more complete, and more satisfactory form than in any of the ancient heathen religions. The Greek and Roman gods could help their worshippers neither to a truly moral nor to a truly happy life. Now Judaism, through its sacrifices and purifications, its complicated system of religious prescriptions and the promise given to those who observed them, held out the certain prospect of both those things. And if deliverance from sin and sorrow be the deepest longing of the human heart, is it possible that a religion which seemed to afford a more certain prospect of such deliverance than those of heathendom could pretend to do, could fail to have its attractions even in spite of the seeming repulsiveness of many of its externals? (3) Lastly, it was also an advantage to Judaism as well, that it happened to be so much the fashion of the time to patronize Oriental religions generally The religions of classical antiquity no longer exercised the same absolute power of attracting the minds of men as once they did. On all hands people were itching for something new, and they eagerly clutched at those mysterious Oriental worships which, owing to increased intercourse and more extended commercial relations, were every day becoming more widely known.[2295] We find that in Greece, and more particularly in Athens, the Phrygian worships of Sabazius (Bacchus) and the great mother of the gods had got a footing even at so early a period as the end of the fifth century B.C.[2296] The Egyptian and other Oriental ones followed not long after. In the year 333 B.C. the Athenians issued a decree giving permission to the merchants from Citium (Cyprus) to build a temple to Aphrodite, therefore to the Semitic Astarte, in the Piraeus; while on this occasion reference is made to the fact that the Egyptians already had a temple of Isis in the same place.[2297] This latter therefore must have been built about the middle of the fourth century B.C. A century farther on, viz. about 250 B.C., we also find a collegium of worshippers of Serapis (Σαραπιασταί) in the Piraeus.[2298] In the last-mentioned case it is obvious that the association is now no longer composed merely of foreigners, but, as the Greek names of the members serve to show, of natives as well. And so we find that since the third century B.C. Egyptian cults had come to be very widely practised throughout Greece generally.[2299] Besides these, other Oriental worships, and that in strange admixture, are also to be met with particularly in the islands of Greece and in Asia Minor.[2300] In Rome again it was in like manner the Egyptian worships above all that, at an early period, gained a firm footing.[2301] Even so far back as the second century B.C. they had begun to make their appearance here, and although repeatedly forbidden by the senate and put down by force, still they always sprang up afresh. In the year 43 B.C. the triumvirs themselves built a temple of Serapis and Isis for public worship.[2302] Consequently by this time the worship of the gods of Egypt must have been no longer an affair merely of private associations, but carried on under the auspices of the state itself. In the time of Augustus there were already several temples in Rome for the Egyptian sacra, though of course outside the pomaerium as yet.[2303] In the reign of Tiberius an attempt was made to suppress them entirely.[2304] But many of the succeeding emperors only favoured them so much the more. During the whole imperial age they were disseminated to an unusual degree throughout the provinces especially. At a somewhat later period the Egyptian worships were followed by those of Asia Minor, Syria, and Persia, which also found a footing in Rome. Here their palmy days did not begin till the second century of our era. The worship of the Syrian sun-god was the one to which the Antonines showed special favour.[2305] But that of the Persian Mithras, with its dark mysteries, was in still greater favour, and that throughout the entire Roman Empire. Upon the inscriptions in almost every province of the empire there is no Oriental worship that we so frequently meet with in imperial times as this.[2306] The secret of the attraction which all those worships possessed lay essentially in two characteristic features common to them all.[2307] In the first place, in all of them there is a touch of monotheism in some form or other. No matter whether the divinity was known under the designation of Isis, or Serapis, or Mithras, or any other, there was, as a rule, bound up with this designation—at least at the time now in question—the idea now more and now less plainly indicated, that this supreme divine being had no equal, nay that the different names were but different designations for one and the same God. The other characteristic feature was the practical tendency connected with that putting away of sin and that moral purity which, though only in the form it might be of an external, often an absurd asceticism, were, in the case of almost the whole of those worships, demanded of those who embraced them, and in return for which they had the promise of deliverance from sin and misery. But in those two leading features it is impossible not to recognise an actual superiority of the Oriental cults over those of the rest of antiquity. For however absurd and repugnant their mode of expressing it might be, they nevertheless answered to a genuine religious need in laying, as they did, the chief stress upon those two points. Now it may be confidently affirmed that Judaism answered this need in a much more perfect manner. If so, where was the wonder that even this teterrima gens should yet have found so many who were prepared to embrace its religion? The results in this respect would doubtless have been much more favourable still, if the despised social position of the Jews, and the somewhat non-aesthetic character of the worship, and the load of oppressive and seemingly meaningless and nonsensical ceremonies and observances, had not proved a formidable obstacle. In the Hellenistico-Roman period Jewish propagandism seems to have been carried on with great activity. One should have thought that, strictly speaking, orthodox Pharisaic Judaism could hardly have been justified in making any effort whatever to obtain converts to the religion of Israel beyond the circle of its own countrymen. For if it be true that the promise applied only to the children of Abraham, then what, in that case, were the Gentiles to gain by their conversion to the Jewish faith? But here the natural impulse—so characteristic of all active religionists—to impart to others the blessings which they themselves possess, proved too powerful for dogmatic preconceptions. If by his conversion to Judaism the Gentile would not acquire all the privileges of the true Israelite, still he would thereby be snatched from the mass of those doomed to perdition, and have some connection at least with the people of the promise. Consequently we find that even the Pharisees in Palestine developed an active zeal for conversions. “They compassed sea and land to make one proselyte” (Matthew 23:15). Matters however were in a totally different position in the dispersion. For Hellenistic Judaism descent from Abraham was, as may be seen from Philo, only a secondary matter after all, while the true worship of God was regarded as of paramount importance. Here then the desire to convert heathendom from its blindness and folly would of necessity assert itself far more strongly than in Palestine. And hence it is that a portion of the Judaeo-Hellenistic literature is essentially devoted to the promotion of this object (see § 33). How active they were in their labours is sufficiently proved by the way in which Horace satirizes the proselytizing zeal of the Jews.[2308]
[2293] Strabo, xvi. 2. 35, p. 760 sq.
[2294] Strabo, xvi. 2. 37, p. 761.
[2295] On this and the state of religious matters throughout the Graeco-Roman world generally, comp. Tzschirner, Der Fall des Heidenthums (Leipzig 1829), pp. 13-164, especially p. 74 sqq. Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, Vorhalle zur Geschichte des Christenthums, Regensb. 1857. Schneckeuburger, Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch. pp. 40-61. Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch., 2nd ed. ii. 1-88. Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, iii. 1871, pp. 421-504. Keim, Rom und das Christenthum (from Keim’s unpublished remains, and edited by Ziegler, Berlin 1881), pp. 1-131, especially p. 86 sqq. Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs, Paris 1873. Boissier, La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins, 2 vols., 2nd ed. Paris 1878. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 1878, pp. 71-112. Preller, Römische Mythologie, 3rd ed. by Jordan, vol. ii. 1883, pp. 359-453. A considerable amount of material may be found in the Indices to the Corp. Inscr. Lat.
[2296] See in particular, Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs, chap. ix. x. and xi.
[2297] Foucart, pp. 187-189 = Corp. Inser. Atticarum, ii. 1, n. 168: καθάπερ καὶ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τὸ τῆς Ἴσιδος ἱερὸν ἵδρυνται.
[2298] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 120 = Foucart, p. 207 = Corp. Inscr. Attic. ii. 1, n. 617.
[2299] See Preller, Ueber Inschriften aus Chäranea (Transactions of the Sächs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. 1854, p. 195 sqq.). Lafaye, Histoire du culte des divinités d’Alexandrie Sérapis, Isis, Harpocrate et Anubis hors de l’Egypte depuis let origines jusqu’, à la naissance de l’école néo-platonicienne, Paris 1884 (especially pp. 1-38). Comp. in general also Matthiä, art. “Isis,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encyc. sec. ii. vol. xxiv. (1845), pp. 427-435. Georgii in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii. 1509 sqq. (art. “Horus”), and iv. pp. 276-300 (art. “Isis”).
[2300] Foucart, chaps. xi. xii. xiii.
[2301] See Reichel, De Isidis apud Romanos cultu, Berol. 1849. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 76 sqq. Preller, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed. by Jordan), ii. pp. 373-385. Lafaye, as above, pp. 38-63, and elsewhere. The inscriptions of the city of Rome in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. vi. n. 344-355 (Isis), and n. 570-574 (Serapis).
[2302] Dio Cass. xlvii. 15.
[2303] Dio Cass. liii. 2.
[2304] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 4. Tacitus, Annal. ii. 85. Sueton. Tiber xxxvi.
[2305] On the Syrian worships, comp. Preller, Römische Mythologie (3rd ed.), ii. 394 ff. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 82.
[2306] On the Persian Mithras himself, comp. Windischmann, Mithra, ein Beitrag zur Mythengeschichte des Orients (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. i., Leipzig 1859). On the spread of his worship throughout the Roman Empire, see Zoega, Ueber die den Dienst des Mithras betreffenden römischen Kunstdenkmäler (Zoega’s Abhandlungen, edited by Welcker, 1817, pp. 89-210 and 394-416). Preller, Römische Mythologie, 3rd ed. ii. 408-418. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 82 sqq. Renan, Marc-Aurèle (1882), pp. 575-580. T. Fabri, De Mithrae dei solis invicti apud Romanos cultu, Dissert. inaug. 1883. For the inscriptions of the city of Rome, see Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. vi. n. 713-754.
[2307] On this comp. briefly Marquardt, iii. 84 sqq., for example.
[2308] Horace, Sat. i. 4. 142-143: ac veluti te Judaei cogemus in hanc concedere turbam. Comp. Danz, Cura Judaeorum in conquirendis proselytis, ad Matt. xxiii. 15 (Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustratum, 1736, pp. 649-676). Wetstein, Nov. Test., note on Matthew 23:15, and the commentators generally on this passage. For the erroneous interpretation of it given by Grätz, see Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1869, p. 169 sq. The historical truth of the thing assumed in Matthew 23:15 is also maintained by Kuenen (Volksreligion und Weltreligion, German translation, 1883, pp. 332-334).
The success with which those efforts were crowned was in any case something very considerable.[2309] If we may judge from the numerous hints we come across, it may be assumed that, in the Hellenistico-Roman period, the number of those who allied themselves more or less closely with the Jewish communities, took part in Jewish worship, and observed the Jewish ordinances with a greater or less degree of strictness, was a very large one, although not quite equal to that of the worshippers of Isis and Mithras. “Many of the Greeks,” as Josephus boasts, “have been converted to the observance of our laws; some have remained true, while others, who were incapable of stedfastness, have fallen away again.”[2310] “Likewise among the mass of the people,” he remarks in another passage, “there has for a long time now been a great amount of zeal for our worship; nor is there a single town among Greeks or barbarians or anywhere else, not a single nation to which the observance of the Sabbath as it exists among ourselves has not penetrated; while fasting and the burning of lights, and many of our laws with regard to meats, are also observed.”[2311] Seneca[2312] and Dio Cassius[2313] bear testimony to precisely the same effect, though from a different standpoint. For the purpose of accounting for the large amount of treasure in the temple at Jerusalem, Josephus appeals not merely to the copious tribute sent in by Jews in every part of the world, but also to that contributed by the “God-fearing,” i.e. the proselytes.[2314] In stating the number of Jews of every nationality that were living in Jerusalem, the Acts (2:9-11) does not forget to mention the proselytes along with the Jews (2:10: Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι). And we find that those general testimonies are corroborated by numerous details of one kind or another. In Antioch “the Jews always got a large number of Greeks to come to their religious services when they treated them as, in a certain sense, a part of themselves,”[2315] In Antioch of Pisidia Paul addressed those assembled in the synagogue as: ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλεῖται καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν (Acts 13:16), ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραὰμ καὶ οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν (Acts 13:26). After the service was concluded there followed him πολλοὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ τῶν σεβομένων προσηλύτων (Acts 13:43; comp, also 13:50). In Thessalonica there was converted by Paul τῶν σεβομένων Ἑλλήνων πλῆθος πολύ (Acts 17:4). In Athens Paul preaches in the synagogue τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις καὶ τοῖς σεβομένοις (Acts 17:17). Consequently we find that wherever there was a Jewish community there was also a body of proselytes attached to it. That in Rome too Jewish propagandism must have been attended with some measure of success, is evident from the satires of a Horace or a Juvenal.[2316] Then, as in the case of every religious movement, so also in the case of Jewish propagandism, it was found that it was the female heart that was most impressionable. In Damascus nearly the whole female portion of the inhabitants was devoted to Judaism.[2317] And not unfrequently it was precisely women of rank who showed those leanings.[2318] We also read of at least several instances of the conversion of men occupying distinguished positions.[2319] But the most notable triumph of the proselytizing zeal of the Jews was the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene, to which Josephus recurs again and again with manifest pride (Antt. xx. 2-4; Bell. Jud. ii. 19. 2, iv. 9. 11, v. 2. 2, 3. 3, 4. 2, 6. 1, vi. 6. 3, 4).[2320] The kingdom of Adiabene, situated on the confines of the Roman and Parthian Empires, and standing towards the latter in a certain relation of dependence, was in the time of Claudius under the rule of a monarch called Izates, who, with his mother Helena, became a convert to Judaism, and subsequently induced his brother Monobazus and all the rest of his kindred to follow his example.[2321] Owing to its conversion this family came to have numerous relations of one kind or another with Jerusalem. Izates sent five of his sons to be educated there.[2322] Helena made a pilgrimage thither, and during the famine in the time of Claudius she gave away large quantities of the necessaries of life to be distributed among the people.[2323] According to a Rabbinical tradition, she is said to have been a Nazarite for fourteen, or as some others allege, even for twenty-one years.[2324] Both Helena and Monobazus (who succeeded his brother as king) had a palace in Jerusalem.[2325] They both presented valuable cups to the temple there.[2326] When Izates and his mother died, Monobazus caused them to be buried in Jerusalem in a magnificent tomb which had been built by Helena herself.[2327] During the Jewish wars some relatives of Monobazus fought on the side of the Jews against the Romans.[2328]
[2309] On the proselytism of the Jews, comp. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 407-411. Selden, De synedriis, lib. i. c. iii., lib. ii. c. iii. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 31-52 of the notes (and at p. 51 sqq. of the same, the older literature). Deyling, De σεβομενοις τον θεον (Observatt. sacr. ii. pp. 462-469). Various dissertations in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxii. Lübkert, Die Proselyten der Juden (Stud. u. Krit. 1835, pp. 681-700). Winer, Realwörtb. ii. 285-287. Leyrer, art. “Proselyten,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyc., 1st ed. xii. 237-250. In the second edition and re-written by Delitzsch, xii. 293-300. De Wette, Lehrb. der bibl. Archäologie (4th ed.), pp. 374-377. Keil, Handb. der bibl. Archäologie (2nd ed.), pp. 339-342. Zezschwitz, System der christl. kirchl. Katechetik, vol. i. (1863), pp. 210-227. Holtzmann in Weber and Holtzmann’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 268 sqq. Hausrath, Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 111-128. Dereubourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 220-229. Grünebaum, Die Fremden nach rabbinischen Gesetzen (Geiger’s Jüd. Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, 1870, pp. 43-57; 1871, pp. 164-172). Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv. pp. 629-631. Bernay’s Die Gottesfürchtigen bei Juvenal (Commentationes philol. in honorem Th. Mommseni, 1877, pp. 563-569; also in Bernay’s Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1885, ii. pp. 71-80). Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s, § 557. Hamburger, Real-Encyc. für Bibel und Talmud, 2nd part, art. “Proselyt;” also the articles “Nichtisraelit,” “Noachiden,” “Helene,” “Izates,” “Monobaz.” Grätz, Die jüdischen Proselyten im Römerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian (Jahresbericht des jüd.-theol. Seminares zu Breslau, 1883). Kuenen, Volksreligion und Weltreligion (German edition, 1883), pp. 224-227.
[2310]a Apion. ii. 10: πολλοὶ παρʼ αὐτῶν εἱς τοὺς ἡμετέρους νόμους συνέβησαν εἰσελθεῖν, καὶ τινὲς μὲν ἔμειναν, εἰσὶ δʼ οἳ τὴν καρτερίαν οὐχ ὑπομείναντες πάλιν ἀπέστησαν.
[2311] Apion. ii. 39: καὶ πλήθεσιν ἤδη πολὺς ζῆλος γέγονεν ἐκ μακροῦ τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας, οὐδʼ ἔστιν οὐ πόλις Ἑλλήνων οὐδʼ ἡτισοῦν οὐδὲ βάρβαρος, οὺδὲ ἓν ἔθνος, ἔνθα μὴ τὸ τῆς ἑβδομάδος, ἣν ἀργοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, ἔθος οὐ διαπεφοίτηκε, καὶ αἱ νηστεῖαι καὶ λύχνων ἀνακαύσεις καὶ πολλὰ τῶν εἰς βρῶσιν ἡμῖν οὐ νενομισμένων παρατετήρηται. Comp. Tertullian, ad nationes, i. 13: Vos certe estis, qui etiam in laterculum septem dierum solem recepistis, et ex diebus ipso priorem praelegistis, quo die lavacrum subtrahatis aut in vesperam differatis, aut otium et prandium ouretis. Quod quidem facitis exorbitantes et ipsi a vestris ad alienas religiones. Judaei enim festi sabbata et coena pura et Judaici ritus lucernarum et jejunia cum azymis et orationes litorales, quae utique aliena sunt a diis vestris. No doubt Tertullian is here speaking only of Gentiles who observed certain Jewish practices. So in the case of Josephus one has an impression that he also has in view the observance of Jewish practices outside the circle of the Jewish communities. He aims at showing how the laws of the Jews found an echo even among those who were not Jews themselves. In proof of this he first of all mentions the fact that the Greek philosophers had drawn largely upon those laws; and then he proceeds to point out in the way already stated how the observance of Jewish practices was often to be met with among the mass of the people as well. Still it appears to me to be plain that here it is not mere analogies between Gentile and Jewish practices that the historian has in view (such practices as the adopting of the week of seven days and the Orphico-Pythagorean asceticism). For what Josephus also finds among those who are not Jews is precisely the Jewish manner of observing the Sabbath as well as the observance of the Jewish regulations with respect to meats. But it is the reference to the practice of burning lights (λύχνων ἀνακαύσεις, ritus lucernarum, as Tertullian calls it) that shows above all that the matter in question is an actual imitating of Jewish practices. For the practice in view is obviously that of burning lights before the dawn of the Sabbath, so that in the course of that day there may be no occasion to violate the law against the lighting of the fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3). Comp. on this “Sabbath-light” (נֵר הַשַּׁבָּת), Mislina, Shabbath ii. 6, 7. Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, pp. 191-199 (ibid. also at p. 1123, where the passage from Shabbath xxxv. is given). Seneca, Epist. xcv. 47 (ed. Haase): Quomodo sint di colendi, solet praecipi: accendere aliquem lucernas sabbatis prohibeamus, etc. The matter is described with great pungency by the satirist Persius, who says (Sat. v. 179-184): “But when the days of Herod come round (i.e. the Jewish Sabbaths observed by Herod), and the lamps placed in the greasy window emit their thier smoke (unctaque fenestra || dispositae pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae), and in the red plate the tail of a tunny-fish swims, and the white jug overflows with wine, then thou silently movest the lips and turnest pale at the Sabbaths of the circumcised.” Josephus is therefore to be understood as speaking of the observance of practices of a specifically Jewish character by those who were not native Jews; and in doing so he distinguishes between those people who have a “zeal for our religion” (ζῆλος τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας) and the philosophers who, while borrowing a great deal from Moses, nevertheless “to all appearance continue to adhere to their native practices” (τῷ δοκεῖν τὰ πάτρια διεφύλαττον). Consequently he has in view those who have consciously adopted Jewish practices as such. Certainly he does not appear to regard them as belonging to the number of those who had joined the Jewish communities; and besides, Tertullian speaks of those who thoughtlessly adopted only one or two of the Jewish practices. From this then we can see that the line of demarcation was somewhat ill defined.
[2312] Seneca as quoted by Augustine, De civitate Dei, vi. 11: Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetudo convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit, victi viotoribus leges dederunt.… Illi tamen causas ritus sui noverunt; major pars populi facit, quod cur faciat ignorat.
[2313] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 17: Ἥ τε γὰρ χώρα Ἰουδαία καὶ αὐτοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι ὠνομάδαται. Ἡ δὲ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη ἐκείνοις μὲν οὐκ οἷδʼ ὅθεν ἤρξατο γενέσθαι, φέρει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ὅσοι τὰ υόμιμα αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἀλλοεθνεῖς ὄντες, ζηλοῦσι.
[2314] Antt. xiv. 7. 2.
[2315] Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3: ἀεί τε προσαγόμενοι ταῖς θρησκείαις πολὺ πολῆθος Ἑλλήνων κὰκείνους τρόπῳ τινὶ μοῖραν αὑτῶν πεποιηντο.
[2316] Horace, Sat. i. 9. 68-72 (where the person who observes the Jewish Sabbath is described as unus multorum). Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106. A certain Beturia Paulina … quae bixit an. LXXXVI. meses VI. proselita an. XVI. nominae Sara is mentioned upon a Roman inscription in Orelli’s Inscr. Lat. n. 2522. Again, the Φλαβία Ἀντωνῖνα γυνὴ Δατίβου τοῦ ζὰ βίου ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν Αὐγουστησίων, mentioned on another Roman epitaph (Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9903 = Fiorelli, Catalogo del Museo di Napoli, Inscr. Lat. n. 1960), was certainly not a native Jwesss. Comp. in general, Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. 274 sq.
[2317] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 2.
[2318] Acts 13:50; Acts 17:4. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 5. In this latter passage we read of how, on one occasion, a couple of Jewish swindlers defrauded a Roman lady of rank and a devotee of Judaism of a large sum of money under the pretext of sending it to the temple in Jerusalem. On the Empress Poppaea, see above, p. 238.
[2319] Acts 8:26 sqq. (the treasurer of Queen Candace). Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 1, 3 (Azizus of Emesa and Polemon of Cilicia, both of them brothers-in-law of Agrippa II.). Only as being an analogous case we may here mention the consul Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, for it is probable that it was Christianity to which they were converted and not Judaism. On this see Dio Cass. lxvii. 14. Sueton. Domitian. c. xv.; and on another Domitilla, the niece of that same consul Clement, and in regard to whom it is expressly stated that she was a Christian, see Euseb. Hist. eccl. iii. 18. 4, 5; Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 160, 163, ad. ann. Abr. 2112 (where the chronographer Bruttius or Brettius is mentioned as his authority, for whom comp, Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 352). There is further the name of a Domitilla, who probably was also a Christian, on the inscription, n. 948 in vol. vi. of Corp. Inscr. Lat. Comp. in general, Volkmar, Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, p, 297 sqq. Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868), p. 44 sqq. Idem, Zeitschr. für die histor. Theologie, 1869, p. 627 sqq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 435 sqq. Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe (1869), pp. 147-162. Seyerlen, Entstehung und erste Schicksale der Christengemeinde in Rom (1874), p. 56 sqq. Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. pp. 282, 293 sqq. De Rossi, Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1875 (notice of this in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, 290 sq.). Harnack, Clementis Romani epistulae (2nd ed. 1876), prolegom. p. lxii. sq. Erbes, Jahrbb. für prot. Theol. 1878, p. 690 sqq. Funk, Theol. Quartalschr. 1879, p. 531 sqq. Neubauer, Beiträge zu einer Gesch. der römischen Christengemeinde in den beiden ersten Jahrhunderten (Elbing 1880, school programme), pp. 18 sq., 37. Hasenclever, Christliche Proselyten der höhern Stände im ersten Jahrhundert (Jahrbb. für prot. Theol. 1882, pp. 34 sqq., 230 sqq.), Heuser, art. “Domitilla,” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlex., 2nd ed. vol. iii. (1884), p. 1953 sqq.
[2320] Comp. also Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, i. 341 sqq. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 223 sqq. Brull, Jahrbücher für jüdische Gesch. und Literatur, vol. i. 1874, pp. 58-86. Grätz, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877, pp. 241 sqq., 289 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Encyc. für Bibel und Talmud, part ii. arts. “Helene,” “Izates,” “Monobaz.”
[2321] Joseph. Antt. xx. 2-4. Izates is also mentioned by Tacltus, Annal. xii. 13, 14, as being king of Adiabene in the time of Claudius. Monobazus is mentioned as belonging to Nero’s time by Tacitus, Annal. xv. 1, 14. Dio Cass. lxii. 20, 23, lxiii. 1. On the later history, see the outline in Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 435 sqq.
[2322] Antt. xx. 3. 4.
[2323] Antt. xx. 2. 6.
[2324] Nasir iii. 6: “If any one has vowed to be a Nazarite for a longer period and after the time of his vow has expired comes to the land of Israel, then, according to the school of Shammai, he is a Nazarite for thirty days, while according to the school of Hillel, he is so over again from the beginning. Queen Helena, on the occasion of her son’s setting out for the war, vowed, saying: If my son comes back safe I will be a Nazarite for seven years. He did come back, and she became a Nazarite for seven years; and not till after the expiry of the seven years did she come to the land of Israel. Then the school of Hillel declared that she was bound to be a Nazarite for still other seven years; and as, at the end of this latter seven years, she was defiled, she was therefore a Nazarite twenty-one years in all. Rabbi Judah says: She was so only fourteen years.”
[2325] Bell. Jud. v. 6. 1, vi. 6. 3. A female relative of Izates’ of the name of Grapte also had a palace in Jerusalem, Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 11.
[2326] Joma iii. 10: “King Monobaz (מונבז) caused all the handles of the utensils that were made use of on the great day of atonement to be made of gold. His mother Helena again caused a golden lamp (נברשׁת, the same word precisely as that used in Daniel 5:5) to be placed over the door of the temple: while she also caused a golden tablet to be made on which was written the passage about the adulterous woman.”
[2327] Antt. xx. 4. 3; Bell. Jud. v. 2. 2, 3. 3, 4. 2. The tomb consisted of three pyramids (Antt. xx. 4. 3). Eusebius, who had seen it himself, speaks of στῆλαι (Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 12. 3: τῆς γέ τοι Ἑλένης … εἰσέτι νῦν στῆλα.διαφανεῖς ἐν προαστείοις δείκνυνται τῆς νῦν Αἰλίας). It was so famous that Pausanias, Descr. Graeciae, viii. 16, compares it with the tomb of Mausolus. The account he gives of it is certainly of a somewhat fabulous character. He says, for instance, that by means of a wonderful piece of mechanism the stone door of the tomb opened of itself at a particular time once in every year, and then closed again in the same way; at any other time it would have been impossible to open it without destroying it altogether. From the passages in Bell. Jud. it would appear that the tomb stood to the north of the city, and according to Antt. xx. 4.3, at a distance of three stadia from it. According to Jerome, Peregrinatio S. Paulae, c. vi., it stood on the left side (therefore on the east side) of the road to one coming southward (ad laevam musoleo Helenae derelicto … ingressa est Hierosolymam). All this renders it highly probable that it is identical with the so-called kings’ tombs of the present day, the largest site of an ancient burying-place to be found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. On this see Robinson’s Palestine. Idem, Modern Biblical Researches (in favour of the identity). Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 475 sqq. (also in favour of identity). Tobler Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 276-323 (against the identity). Raoul Rochett, Revue archéologique, vol. ix. 1 (1852), pp. 22-37 (in favour of the identity). Quatremère, ibid. pp. 92-113, 157-169 (who takes the kings’ tombs to be the tomb of Herod). De Saulcy, Revue archéologique, vol. ix. 1 (1852), p. 229 sqq., ix. 2 (1853), pp. 398-407. Idem, Voyage en Terre Sainte (1865), i. 345-410 (who takes the kings’ tombs to be the tombs of the ancient kings of Judah). Creuzer, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 913 sqq. Bädeker-Socin, Palästina (1875), p. 246 sqq. A strong argument in favour of the identity of the kings’ tombs with the tomb of Helena is to be found in the fact that in the former a sarcophagus was discovered by De Saulcy, on which there is an inscription in two lines, the first of which runs thus: צדן מלכתא (the Queen Zaddan), the second thus: צדה מלכתה (the Queen Zadda). The language of both lines is Aramaic, but the character in which the first is written is the genuine Syriac, while that of the second is the square Hebrew character. Now surely this is only to be accounted for by the fact that the Queen Zaddan or Zadda in question, and in any case a Jewish queen, belonged to a Syrian royal house which can have been no other than that of Adiabene. See Renan, Journal Asiatique, sixth series, vol. vi. (1865) p. 550 sqq. Chwolson, Corp. Inscr. Hebraicarum (1882), col. 72 sq. and facsimile, n. 8. For a representation of the sarcophagus and the inscription, see also De Sauley, Voyage en Terre Sainte, i. pp. 377, 385.
[2328] Bell. Jud. ii. 19. 2, vi. 6. 4
The form which the adhesion of Gentiles to Judaism assumed, and the extent to which they observed the ceremonial law of the Jews, was of a very varied character. Tertullian speaks of Gentiles who, while observing several Jewish ordinances, continued notwithstanding to worship their own deities (see note [2329] On the other hand, such of them as submitted to circumcision thereby bound themselves to observe the whole law to its fullest extent (Galatians 5:3 : μαρτύρομαι παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι). Between those two extremes there would be, as we may well suppose, a manifold series of gradations. There is something very instructive, in this connection, in the fourteenth satire of Juvenal, where the poet enlarges on the thought as to the way in which children are injuriously affected by the evil example of their parents. The bad practices of the former, he tells us, are transmitted to the latter, and that, as a rule, in an intensified form. By way of giving an example of this in the domain of superstition, he mentions the penchant for Judaism. If the father spends every seventh day in indolence, and looks upon swine’s flesh as being quite as precious as the flesh of man, then not only does the son do the same thing, but he even goes the length of submitting to be circumcised, and despises the Roman laws, and studies and reverently observes the Jewish law that has come down from Moses, and which teaches that they are never to point out the way to any but those of their own faith, nor show any one where to find a well, unless he is circumcised.[2330] From this it is plain that there must have been varying degrees of strictness on the part of Gentiles in regard to their observance of the Jewish law. For the proselytizing zeal of the Jews had just to content itself with what it could get. It was felt that much had been gained if any one could be so far converted as to worship the only true God, and that without the use of images. As regards the ceremonial law, only certain leading points were insisted on in the first instance. Thus the fourth book of the Sibylline oracles, for example, which was composed about the year 80 of our era, and is in all probability of Jewish origin, contains an address to the Gentiles, in which prominence is given only to the worship of the true God and the belief in a future judgment, while instead of requiring the converted Gentile to be circumcised, all that is asked is a bath of purification.[2331] The history of the conversion of King Izates is also very instructive. This monarch was himself animated by a burning zeal for the Jewish law, and wanted to be circumcised. But a Jew of the name of Ananias ventured to interpose, and in the most urgent way possible tried to dissuade him. The Jew apprehended some danger to himself if the idea should get abroad that he had been the occasion of the king’s being circumcised. Consequently he represented to this latter that he could worship God without being circumcised, provided he simply observed in a general way the ordinances of the Jews, this being of more importance than circumcision. He further pointed out to him that if, in deference to the feelings of his subjects, he were to omit this rite, God would certainly forgive him.[2332] Yet for all that Izates insisted on being circumcised; while unquestionably the views of the merchant Ananias were not those of an orthodox Jew. But there were evidently many who thought very much as he did in regard to those matters. The result of this was, that to almost every one of the Jewish communities of the dispersion there was attached a following of “God-fearing” Gentiles who adopted the Jewish (i.e. the monotheistic and imageless) mode of worship, attended the Jewish synagogues, but who, in the observance of the ceremonial law, restricted themselves to certain leading points, and so were regarded as outside the fellowship of the Jewish communities. It is God-fearing Gentiles of this description that are undoubtedly to be understood by the φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν or the σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόνso often mentioned in Josephus, and above all in the Acts of the Apostles.[2333] Now if we ask ourselves what those points of the ceremonial law were which these Gentiles observed, we will find them plainly enough indicated in the passages already quoted from Josephus, Juvenal, and Tertullian (see notes [2334] and [2335] All three agree in this, that it was the Jewish observance of the Sabbath and the prescriptions with regard to meats that were in most general favour within the circles in question. And those are precisely the two points which Juvenal specially mentions in connection with the father of the son who outdoes his father by becoming a thoroughpaced Jew (metuentem sabbata patrem … carne suillam qua pater abstinuit). Then again compliance even with these would sometimes be of a more and sometimes of a less rigid character; it is hardly likely that here any hard and fast line would be observed. From these φοβούμενοι or σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν we must now distinguish the נֵּרִים or προσήλυτοι, strictly so called. For with these latter expressions later Judaism meant to designate those Gentiles who, through circumcision and the observance of the law, became completely incorporated with the Jewish people. In the Old Testament, in its Hebrew and Greek form alike, the נֵּרִים or the προσήλυτοι exactly correspond to the μέτοικοι in the Attic state—that is to say, they are regarded as strangers who have their permanent abode in the land of Israel, but without belonging to the fellowship of Israel (advenae incolae). But subsequent usage uniformly employed both terms, and that without further qualification, to denote those Gentiles who, through circumcision and the observance of the law, had been admitted into full religious fellowship with Israel.[2336] How great the number of those may have been we have no means of knowing. But one cannot be far wrong in estimating it to have been considerably smaller than that of the σεβομενοι.
[2329] Apion. ii. 39: καὶ πλήθεσιν ἤδη πολὺς ζῆλος γέγονεν ἐκ μακροῦ τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας, οὐδʼ ἔστιν οὐ πόλις Ἑλλήνων οὐδʼ ἡτισοῦν οὐδὲ βάρβαρος, οὺδὲ ἓν ἔθνος, ἔνθα μὴ τὸ τῆς ἑβδομάδος, ἣν ἀργοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, ἔθος οὐ διαπεφοίτηκε, καὶ αἱ νηστεῖαι καὶ λύχνων ἀνακαύσεις καὶ πολλὰ τῶν εἰς βρῶσιν ἡμῖν οὐ νενομισμένων παρατετήρηται. Comp. Tertullian, ad nationes, i. 13: Vos certe estis, qui etiam in laterculum septem dierum solem recepistis, et ex diebus ipso priorem praelegistis, quo die lavacrum subtrahatis aut in vesperam differatis, aut otium et prandium ouretis. Quod quidem facitis exorbitantes et ipsi a vestris ad alienas religiones. Judaei enim festi sabbata et coena pura et Judaici ritus lucernarum et jejunia cum azymis et orationes litorales, quae utique aliena sunt a diis vestris. No doubt Tertullian is here speaking only of Gentiles who observed certain Jewish practices. So in the case of Josephus one has an impression that he also has in view the observance of Jewish practices outside the circle of the Jewish communities. He aims at showing how the laws of the Jews found an echo even among those who were not Jews themselves. In proof of this he first of all mentions the fact that the Greek philosophers had drawn largely upon those laws; and then he proceeds to point out in the way already stated how the observance of Jewish practices was often to be met with among the mass of the people as well. Still it appears to me to be plain that here it is not mere analogies between Gentile and Jewish practices that the historian has in view (such practices as the adopting of the week of seven days and the Orphico-Pythagorean asceticism). For what Josephus also finds among those who are not Jews is precisely the Jewish manner of observing the Sabbath as well as the observance of the Jewish regulations with respect to meats. But it is the reference to the practice of burning lights (λύχνων ἀνακαύσεις, ritus lucernarum, as Tertullian calls it) that shows above all that the matter in question is an actual imitating of Jewish practices. For the practice in view is obviously that of burning lights before the dawn of the Sabbath, so that in the course of that day there may be no occasion to violate the law against the lighting of the fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3). Comp. on this “Sabbath-light” (נֵר הַשַּׁבָּת), Mislina, Shabbath ii. 6, 7. Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, pp. 191-199 (ibid. also at p. 1123, where the passage from Shabbath xxxv. is given). Seneca, Epist. xcv. 47 (ed. Haase): Quomodo sint di colendi, solet praecipi: accendere aliquem lucernas sabbatis prohibeamus, etc. The matter is described with great pungency by the satirist Persius, who says (Sat. v. 179-184): “But when the days of Herod come round (i.e. the Jewish Sabbaths observed by Herod), and the lamps placed in the greasy window emit their thier smoke (unctaque fenestra || dispositae pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae), and in the red plate the tail of a tunny-fish swims, and the white jug overflows with wine, then thou silently movest the lips and turnest pale at the Sabbaths of the circumcised.” Josephus is therefore to be understood as speaking of the observance of practices of a specifically Jewish character by those who were not native Jews; and in doing so he distinguishes between those people who have a “zeal for our religion” (ζῆλος τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας) and the philosophers who, while borrowing a great deal from Moses, nevertheless “to all appearance continue to adhere to their native practices” (τῷ δοκεῖν τὰ πάτρια διεφύλαττον). Consequently he has in view those who have consciously adopted Jewish practices as such. Certainly he does not appear to regard them as belonging to the number of those who had joined the Jewish communities; and besides, Tertullian speaks of those who thoughtlessly adopted only one or two of the Jewish practices. From this then we can see that the line of demarcation was somewhat ill defined.
[2330] Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106:—
[2331]a Orac. Sibyll. 4:164. On the Jewish origin of this book, consult Badt, Ursprung, Inhalt und Text des vierten Buches der sibyllinischen Orakel, 1878, and notice of the same in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1878, p. 358 sq.
[2332] Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 5.
[2333] φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, Acts 10:2; Acts 10:22; Acts 13:16; Acts 13:26. σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν, Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2; Acts 13:43; Acts 13:50; Acts 16:14; Acts 17:4; Acts 17:17; Acts 18:7. Here the form of expression varies between the fuller σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2; Acts 16:14; Acts 18:7) and the simple σεβόμενοι (Acts 13:50; Acts 17:4; Acts 17:17). In one instance we meet with σεβόμενοι conjoined with προσήλυτοι (Acts 13:43). Bernays (Commentationes philol. in honorem, Th. Mommseni, p. 565) also compares the inscription, n. 88 in vol. v. 1 of Corp. Inscr. Lat.: Aur. Soteriae matri pientissimae religioni(s) judaicae metuenti. The forms of expression in Juvenal (metuentem sabbata … Judaicum metuunt jus), which Bernays also quotes in this connection, are however of an essentially different character. See in general, Deyling, De σεβομενοις τον θεον (Observationes sacrae, ii. 462-469). Philo, Codex apocryphus Nov. Test. p. 521. Bernays as above.
[2334] Apion. ii. 39: καὶ πλήθεσιν ἤδη πολὺς ζῆλος γέγονεν ἐκ μακροῦ τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας, οὐδʼ ἔστιν οὐ πόλις Ἑλλήνων οὐδʼ ἡτισοῦν οὐδὲ βάρβαρος, οὺδὲ ἓν ἔθνος, ἔνθα μὴ τὸ τῆς ἑβδομάδος, ἣν ἀργοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, ἔθος οὐ διαπεφοίτηκε, καὶ αἱ νηστεῖαι καὶ λύχνων ἀνακαύσεις καὶ πολλὰ τῶν εἰς βρῶσιν ἡμῖν οὐ νενομισμένων παρατετήρηται. Comp. Tertullian, ad nationes, i. 13: Vos certe estis, qui etiam in laterculum septem dierum solem recepistis, et ex diebus ipso priorem praelegistis, quo die lavacrum subtrahatis aut in vesperam differatis, aut otium et prandium ouretis. Quod quidem facitis exorbitantes et ipsi a vestris ad alienas religiones. Judaei enim festi sabbata et coena pura et Judaici ritus lucernarum et jejunia cum azymis et orationes litorales, quae utique aliena sunt a diis vestris. No doubt Tertullian is here speaking only of Gentiles who observed certain Jewish practices. So in the case of Josephus one has an impression that he also has in view the observance of Jewish practices outside the circle of the Jewish communities. He aims at showing how the laws of the Jews found an echo even among those who were not Jews themselves. In proof of this he first of all mentions the fact that the Greek philosophers had drawn largely upon those laws; and then he proceeds to point out in the way already stated how the observance of Jewish practices was often to be met with among the mass of the people as well. Still it appears to me to be plain that here it is not mere analogies between Gentile and Jewish practices that the historian has in view (such practices as the adopting of the week of seven days and the Orphico-Pythagorean asceticism). For what Josephus also finds among those who are not Jews is precisely the Jewish manner of observing the Sabbath as well as the observance of the Jewish regulations with respect to meats. But it is the reference to the practice of burning lights (λύχνων ἀνακαύσεις, ritus lucernarum, as Tertullian calls it) that shows above all that the matter in question is an actual imitating of Jewish practices. For the practice in view is obviously that of burning lights before the dawn of the Sabbath, so that in the course of that day there may be no occasion to violate the law against the lighting of the fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3). Comp. on this “Sabbath-light” (נֵר הַשַּׁבָּת), Mislina, Shabbath ii. 6, 7. Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, pp. 191-199 (ibid. also at p. 1123, where the passage from Shabbath xxxv. is given). Seneca, Epist. xcv. 47 (ed. Haase): Quomodo sint di colendi, solet praecipi: accendere aliquem lucernas sabbatis prohibeamus, etc. The matter is described with great pungency by the satirist Persius, who says (Sat. v. 179-184): “But when the days of Herod come round (i.e. the Jewish Sabbaths observed by Herod), and the lamps placed in the greasy window emit their thier smoke (unctaque fenestra || dispositae pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae), and in the red plate the tail of a tunny-fish swims, and the white jug overflows with wine, then thou silently movest the lips and turnest pale at the Sabbaths of the circumcised.” Josephus is therefore to be understood as speaking of the observance of practices of a specifically Jewish character by those who were not native Jews; and in doing so he distinguishes between those people who have a “zeal for our religion” (ζῆλος τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας) and the philosophers who, while borrowing a great deal from Moses, nevertheless “to all appearance continue to adhere to their native practices” (τῷ δοκεῖν τὰ πάτρια διεφύλαττον). Consequently he has in view those who have consciously adopted Jewish practices as such. Certainly he does not appear to regard them as belonging to the number of those who had joined the Jewish communities; and besides, Tertullian speaks of those who thoughtlessly adopted only one or two of the Jewish practices. From this then we can see that the line of demarcation was somewhat ill defined.
[2335] Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106:—
[2336] In the Mishna גֵּר is used in the sense given to it in the text in the following passages: Demai vi. 10; Shebiith x. 9; Challa iii. 6; Bikkurim i. 4-5; Pesachim viii. 8; Shekalim i. 3, 6, vii. 6; Kethuboth ix. 9; Kiddushin iv. 1, 6, 7; Baba kamma iv. 7, ix. 11; Baba mezia iv. 10; Baba bathra iii. 8, iv. 9; Edujoth v. 2; Horajoth i. 4, iii. 8; Chullin x. 4; Kerithoth ii. 1; Nidda vii. 3; Sabim ii. 1, 3; Jadajim iv. 4. The feminine נִּיּוֹרֶת occurs in Jebamoth vi. 5, viii. 2, xi. 2; Kethuboth i. 2, 4, iii. 1, 2, iv. 3; Kiddushin iv. 7; Baba kamma v. 4; Edujoth v. 6. The use of גֵּר in the sense of a converted stranger is so completely established that even a verb נִתְנַּיֵּר = “to become a convert,” has been formed from it, and occurs in Pea iv. 6; Shebiith x. 9; Challa iii. 6; Pesachim viii. 8; Jebamoth ii. 8, xi. 2; Kethuboth i. 2, 4, iii. 1, 2, iv. 8, ix. 6; Gittin ii. 6; Kiddushin iii. 5; Chullin x. 4; Bechoroth viii. 1; Negaim vii. 1; Sabim ii. 3. The Aramaic form of נֵּר is נִּיּוֹרָא, which also occurs twice in the Septuagint (γειώρας, Exodus 12:19; Isaiah 14:1), and in Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. chap. cxxii. (γηόρας); Schleusner’s Lexicon for the Sept. under γειώρας, and Otto’s note on Justin as above. In his history of the Jewish war Josephus makes frequent mention of ὁ τοῦ Γιώρα Σίμων. For the purpose of denoting the simple metoikos in the Old Testament sense of the word, the Mishna uses an expression which, like the former, is also found already in the Old Testament, viz. גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב, Baba mezia v. 6, ix. 12; Makkoth ii. 3; Negaim iii. 1. The Greek προσήλυτος has also undergone the same changes of meaning as נֵּר. In later usage this too is no longer employed, as in the Septuagint, to denote an advena in the land of Israel, but a convert to the religion of Israel (a νομίμοις προσεληλυθὼς τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς, Antt. xviii. 3. 5). It is so explained by Philo, who attaches to the Old Testament term the meaning current in his own day, when he says, De monarchia, i. § 7 (Mang. ii. 219): τούτους δὲ καλεῖ προσηλύτους ἀπὸ τοῦ προσεληλυθέναι καινῇ καὶ φιλοθέῳ πολιτείᾳ κ.τ.λ. Comp. also the fragment in the Catenae on Exodus 22:19, as quoted by Mang. ii. 677. Suidas’ Lex. under the word explains as follows: οἱ ἐξ ἐθνῶν προσεληλυθότες καὶ κατὰ νόμον ποθήσαντες πολιτεύεσθαι. In the New Testament, Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:10; Acts 6:5; Acts 13:43 (in the latter passage however the addition of σεβόμενοι precludes us from supposing that circumcised persons are in view). Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. chap. cxxii. Irenaeus, iii. 21. 1 (Theodotion and Aquila, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι). Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos, chap. i. Clemens Alexandr. Quis dives salvetur, chap. xxviii. (Dindorf, iii. 405). Inscription, n. 2522 in Orelli, Inscr. Lat. (see note 276). Another inscription in Engeström, Om Judarne i Rom (Upsala 1876), p. 41 sq.: Mannacius sorori Chrusidi dulcissime proselyti. Instead of προσήλυτος we also find ἐπήλυτος by itself (Philo, De monarchia, book i. § 7 (ed. Mang. ii. 219). Barnabae, Epist. chap. iii. fin.).
Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem,
Nil praeter nubes et coeli numen adorant,
Nec distare putant humana carne suillam,
Qua pater obstinuit; mox et praeputia ponunt:
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt jus,
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses:
Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,
Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.
Sed pater in causa, cui septima quaeque fuit lux
Ignava et partem vitae non attigit ullam.
Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem,
Nil praeter nubes et coeli numen adorant,
Nec distare putant humana carne suillam,
Qua pater obstinuit; mox et praeputia ponunt:
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt jus,
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses:
Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,
Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.
Sed pater in causa, cui septima quaeque fuit lux
Ignava et partem vitae non attigit ullam.
With those two classes, the σεβόμενοι on the one hand and the προσήλυτοι properly so called on the other, Christian scholars are uniformly in the habit of identifying two categories of an apparently kindred character that are met with in Rabbinical literature. It is quite usual to say (as was also done in the first edition of the present work), that the σεβόμενοι correspond to what in Rabbinical language are called “proselytes of the gate” (נֵּרֵי הַשַּׁעַר), and the προσήλυτοι, on the other hand, to what in the same language are known as “proselytes of righteousness” (נֵּרֵי הַצֶּדֶק).[2337] In point of fact however it is only this latter part of the statement that is correct, the σεβόμενοι and the גרי השער having nothing whatever to do with each other. Those Rabbinical designations are as yet entirely foreign to the usage of the Mishna, where the only distinction met with is that between the נֵּר pure and simple and the נֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. The former means a Gentile who has been converted to Judaism, the latter again corresponds to what in the Old Testament is understood by a נֵּר, namely a stranger dwelling in the land of Israel (see note [2338] But with a view to greater clearness and precision it afterwards came to be the practice to substitute for גר the expression גר צדק (a righteous stranger, i.e. a stranger who observes the law), and for גר תושב the words גר שער, a stranger dwelling in the gates or in the land of Israel (according to Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14; Deuteronomy 14:21; Deuteronomy 24:14). The latter therefore corresponds exactly to what in the Old Testament is simply called a גר. It would appear however that the expression גר שער is as yet no less foreign to Talmudic usage. At least in all the passages from the Talmud that are quoted in any of the literature with which I happen to be acquainted, the only expression ever used is גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב.[2339] It is not till we come down to the Rabbinical writers of the Middle Ages that we meet with the expression גר שער as well.[2340] If then we confine ourselves to Talmudic usage the question is simply reduced to this, whether the σεβόμενοι are to be regarded as identical with the גרי תושב. Now with regard to these latter the Talmud states that they were those who had come under an obligation to observe “the seven precepts of the children of Noah.”[2341] Under this designation the Talmudic doctors include all those precepts that were already binding upon mankind at large before Abraham and outside of his family (in other words, the “children of Noah”).[2342] If then compliance with these latter was what was demanded of the גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב, this can only mean that one who was not a Jew, but who lived permanently in the land of Israel, had at least to observe those precepts that were equally binding on the whole human race. Of course this proved to be nothing more than a barren theory. For it is hardly likely that the Greeks and Romans who lived in Palestine would trouble themselves much about those Jewish regulations. So far then as practical life is concerned the so-called precepts for proselytes have no significance. They only represent a casuistical theory which was never reduced to actual practice.[2343] From this therefore it is evident that the גרי תושב have no connection with the σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν, just as it is further certain that what we know from history regarding these latter is utterly incompatible with the Rabbinical requirements in regard to the גרי תושב.
[2337] So Deyling, for example, in the treatise mentioned above (note 291), Wolf, Curae philol. in Nov. Test., note on Acts 13:16, and many subsequent writers. I am rather disposed to think that it was Deyling who originated this view. For I have not met with a single instance among writers previous to him in which the σεβόμενοι are regarded as being the same as the “proselytes of the gate.”
[2338] In the Mishna גֵּר is used in the sense given to it in the text in the following passages: Demai vi. 10; Shebiith x. 9; Challa iii. 6; Bikkurim i. 4-5; Pesachim viii. 8; Shekalim i. 3, 6, vii. 6; Kethuboth ix. 9; Kiddushin iv. 1, 6, 7; Baba kamma iv. 7, ix. 11; Baba mezia iv. 10; Baba bathra iii. 8, iv. 9; Edujoth v. 2; Horajoth i. 4, iii. 8; Chullin x. 4; Kerithoth ii. 1; Nidda vii. 3; Sabim ii. 1, 3; Jadajim iv. 4. The feminine נִּיּוֹרֶת occurs in Jebamoth vi. 5, viii. 2, xi. 2; Kethuboth i. 2, 4, iii. 1, 2, iv. 3; Kiddushin iv. 7; Baba kamma v. 4; Edujoth v. 6. The use of גֵּר in the sense of a converted stranger is so completely established that even a verb נִתְנַּיֵּר = “to become a convert,” has been formed from it, and occurs in Pea iv. 6; Shebiith x. 9; Challa iii. 6; Pesachim viii. 8; Jebamoth ii. 8, xi. 2; Kethuboth i. 2, 4, iii. 1, 2, iv. 8, ix. 6; Gittin ii. 6; Kiddushin iii. 5; Chullin x. 4; Bechoroth viii. 1; Negaim vii. 1; Sabim ii. 3. The Aramaic form of נֵּר is נִּיּוֹרָא, which also occurs twice in the Septuagint (γειώρας, Exodus 12:19; Isaiah 14:1), and in Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. chap. cxxii. (γηόρας); Schleusner’s Lexicon for the Sept. under γειώρας, and Otto’s note on Justin as above. In his history of the Jewish war Josephus makes frequent mention of ὁ τοῦ Γιώρα Σίμων. For the purpose of denoting the simple metoikos in the Old Testament sense of the word, the Mishna uses an expression which, like the former, is also found already in the Old Testament, viz. גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב, Baba mezia v. 6, ix. 12; Makkoth ii. 3; Negaim iii. 1. The Greek προσήλυτος has also undergone the same changes of meaning as נֵּר. In later usage this too is no longer employed, as in the Septuagint, to denote an advena in the land of Israel, but a convert to the religion of Israel (a νομίμοις προσεληλυθὼς τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς, Antt. xviii. 3. 5). It is so explained by Philo, who attaches to the Old Testament term the meaning current in his own day, when he says, De monarchia, i. § 7 (Mang. ii. 219): τούτους δὲ καλεῖ προσηλύτους ἀπὸ τοῦ προσεληλυθέναι καινῇ καὶ φιλοθέῳ πολιτείᾳ κ.τ.λ. Comp. also the fragment in the Catenae on Exodus 22:19, as quoted by Mang. ii. 677. Suidas’ Lex. under the word explains as follows: οἱ ἐξ ἐθνῶν προσεληλυθότες καὶ κατὰ νόμον ποθήσαντες πολιτεύεσθαι. In the New Testament, Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:10; Acts 6:5; Acts 13:43 (in the latter passage however the addition of σεβόμενοι precludes us from supposing that circumcised persons are in view). Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. chap. cxxii. Irenaeus, iii. 21. 1 (Theodotion and Aquila, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι). Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos, chap. i. Clemens Alexandr. Quis dives salvetur, chap. xxviii. (Dindorf, iii. 405). Inscription, n. 2522 in Orelli, Inscr. Lat. (see note 276). Another inscription in Engeström, Om Judarne i Rom (Upsala 1876), p. 41 sq.: Mannacius sorori Chrusidi dulcissime proselyti. Instead of προσήλυτος we also find ἐπήλυτος by itself (Philo, De monarchia, book i. § 7 (ed. Mang. ii. 219). Barnabae, Epist. chap. iii. fin.).
[2339] So above all in Sanhedrin 96b: “Naeman (2 Kings 5:1) was a גר תושב; Nebuzaradan (2 Kings 25:8) was a גר צבק” (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 410). Similarly in all the other passages from the Talmud quoted, for example, by Buxtorf (Lex. under גר), Levy (Neuhebr. Wörterb. under גר), Hamburger (Real-Enc. art. “Proselyt”) and others, the only expressions met with are גר תושב and גר צדק.
[2340] When one peruses modern treatises on this subject, one is led to suppose that the expression גר שער was quite current. But throughout the whole of the literature with which I am acquainted I have not been able to discover more than one solitary instance of it, namely R. Bechai (belonging to the thirteenth century) in his Kad ha-Kemach as quoted in Buxtorf’s Lex. col. 410.
[2341] Aboda sara 64b: “What is a גר תושב? According to R. Meir, every one who, in the presence of the Chaberim, comes under an obligation to abstain from all idolatrous worship. But the doctors say: Every one that accepts the seven precepts which were accepted by the descendants of Noah (בני נח). Others say: A גר תושב is a stranger who eats the carcase of an animal that has died a natural death (נבלות, Leviticus 22:8; Deuteronomy 14:21); who observes all the precepts of the law except that which forbids the eating of fallen meat.” See also Buxtorf, Lex. col. 409. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 941 (art. “Proselyt”). Slevogt, De proselytis Judaeorum, chap, xli., in Ugolini, Thes. xxii. 842 (and here according to Maimonides). Leyrer in Herzog’s Enc., 1st ed. vol. xii. p. 250. Delitzsch, also in Herzog, 2nd ed. vol. xii. p. 300.
[2342] Sanhedrin 56b top: “There were seven precepts given to the descendants of Noah (בני נח): (1) דינין (to obey those in authority), (2) ברכת השם (to sanctify the name of God), (3) עבודה זרה (to abstain from idolatry), (4) גלוי עריות (to commit no fornication), (5) שפיכות דמים (to do no murder), (6) גזל (not to steal), (7) אבר מן החי (not to eat living flesh, i.e. flesh with the blood in it).” For this same enumeration, see Tosefta, Aboda sara ix. In several passages of the Mishna (for example Bereshith rabba, chap. xvi. fin. given in Wünsche, Der Midrash Bereshit rabba ins Deutsche übertragen, 1881, p. 72) only the first six are enumerated as belonging to the Noachian precepts, which are further said to have been already given to Adam himself (see Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. under מצוה; Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, p. 253 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. art. “Noachiden,” p. 864). Hence Maimonides affirms that the first six were given to Adam and that the sixth was added in Noah’s time. Moreover mention is likewise made of thirty precepts that had been given to the Noachidae, but of which they only observed three (Chullin 92a bottom; see Waehner, Antiqui Ebr. ii. 163. Hamburger as above, p. 865). See in general, Slevogt, De proselytis Judaeorum, chap. xl. (in Ugolini, Thes. xxii. 841 sq.). Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 268 sqq. Deyling, Observationes sacrae, ii. No. 38, p. 464, ed. Lips. 1722 (also other literature mentioned there). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 40 sq. (also other literature mentioned there). Waehner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, ii. p. 168 sq Leyrer in Herzog’s Enc., 1st ed. xii. 250. Delitzsch, also in Herzog, 2nd ed. xii. 300. Weber, System, etc. p. 253 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. pp. 863-866 (art. “Noachiden”).
[2343] Besides, as the passage quoted from Aboda sara 64b shows, the theory was thrown together only in an off-hand way, it was not seriously thought out. A more careful comparison of the Old Testament regulations with regard to the גרים would have led to different results (see in general, Exodus 12:43-50; Exodus 20:10; Exodus 22:20; Exodus 23:9; Exodus 23:12; Leviticus 17:8; Leviticus 17:10; Leviticus 17:13; Leviticus 17:15; Leviticus 18:26; Leviticus 19:10; Leviticus 19:33-34; Leviticus 20:2; Leviticus 24:16-22; Numbers 15:14-16; Numbers 19:10; Deuteronomy 5:14; Deuteronomy 14:21; Deuteronomy 24:14; Ezekiel 14:7). We see then that the Jewish doctors cannot have dealt with this matter ex professo. Further, the various answers given to the question raised in Aboda sara 64b, go to show that we have to do merely with a view incidentally expressed and not with a firmly established practice.
It would appear, according to the Talmud, that on the occasion of admitting proselytes strictly so called into the Jewish communion three things were necessary: (1) מִילָה, circumcision; (2) טְבִילָה, baptism, i.e. a bath with a view to Levitical purification; and (3) הַרְצָאַת דָּמִים, a sacrifice (literally, a gracious acceptance of blood). In the case of women only the last two were required.[2344] After the destruction of the temple, as a matter of course the sacrifice was discontinued also. In the Mishna all three are presupposed as being already of long standing;[2345] nay for Rabbinical Judaism they are so much matters of course that, even apart from any explicit testimony, we should have had to assume that they were already currently practised in the time of Christ. For as no Jew could be admitted into fellowship with Israel except through circumcision, so it was quite as much a matter of course that a Gentile, who as such was unclean, seeing that he was not in the habit of observing the regulations with regard to Levitical purity, should be required, on entering into such fellowship, to take the bath of Levitical purification. But similarly, a Gentile as such was also מְחֻסַּר כַּפָּרָה “in need of atonement,” and continued to be so “until blood was sprinkled for him.”[2346] Strange to say, with regard to one of the things here in question, namely the baptism or washing with water, the view has prevailed among Christian scholars since the beginning of the eighteenth century, that it was not observed as yet in our Lord’s time. Originally it was for dogmatic reasons that this was maintained, while in modern times nothing but an imperfect acquaintance with the facts of the case can account for the way in which the once dominant prejudice has been allowed to linger on.[2347] Surely every one in the least acquainted with Pharisaic Judaism must know how frequently a native Jew was compelled, in accordance with the enactments of Leviticus 11-15 and Numbers 19, to take a bath with a view to Levitical purification. As Tertullian justly observes, “Judaeus quotidie lavat quia quotidie inquinatur.”[2348] But a Gentile, not being in the habit of observing those regulations with regard to Levitical purity, would as such be unclean and that as a simple matter of course. In that case how was it possible that he could be admitted into Jewish communion without his having first of all subjected himself to a סְבִילָה (a Levitical “bath of purification”)? This general consideration is of itself so conclusive that there is no need to lay any very great stress upon individual testimonies. But we may further add, that it is an unmistakeable fact that, in the Mishna, the taking of the “bath” by the proselyte is already presupposed as an established and authoritative practice.[2349] In like manner the celebrated passage from Arrian (first half of the second century of our era) cannot, in my opinion, be otherwise understood than as referring to the baptism of proselytes.[2350] Again, the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles, the Jewish origin of which is at least probable, insists on converted Gentiles being baptized as an outward token of their conversion.[2351] The two last-mentioned testimonies are specially noteworthy on this account, that they speak only of the baptism and say nothing whatever about the circumcision. From this it follows that even in those cases where full admission to the fellowship of Israel had not taken place, the baptism at least was regarded as necessary. In presence of all those arguments the silence of Philo and Josephus on which so much stress has been laid is of no consequence whatever. For as yet no one has ever been able to point out a single passage in which those writers were necessarily called upon to mention the matter. Then in modern times some have gone the length of admitting that proselytes, on joining the Jewish communion, had to take a bath of Levitical purification. But this they think was something different from “baptism,”[2352] Unfortunetely, however, no one is able to say wherein the difference lies. The truth is, it lies only in the German expression. For in Hebrew they are, as regards both the name and the thing, one and the same, namely a טְבִילָה, and, so far as the essence of this latter is concerned, it mattered very little whether it was accompanied with a larger or a smaller amount of liturgical ceremonial.[2353]
[2344] Kerithoth 81a (according to other editions 9a; it is by way of serving as an explanation of Mishna, Kerithoth ii. 1): “Your fathers entered not otherwise into the covenant than by circumcision, washing with water, and the offering (literally, gracious acceptance) of blood.” See the passage also in Selden, De Synedriis, book i. chap. iii. (vol. i. p. 34 of London edition), in Bengel, Ueber das Alter der jüd. Proselytentaufe, p. 20, and in Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter der jüdischen Proselytentaufe, p. 138. Jebamoth 46a: לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול, “A proselyte only becomes so after he has been circumcised and has been washed with water.… With regard to a proselyte who has been circumcised but not washed with water, R. Eliezer says that he is a proselyte notwithstanding; for we find that, in the case of our fathers, they were circumcised but not washed with water. With regard to one who has been washed with water but not circumcised, R. Joshua says that he is a proselyte notwithstanding, for we find that, in the case of our mothers, they were washed with water but not circumcised. But the doctors say that neither the one nor the other is a proselyte.” See the passage also in Seiden, De Synedriis, book i. chap. iii. (vol. i. p. 35 of London edition), in Bengel as above, p. 22, and in Schneckenburger as above, p. 136 sq. Founding on those Talmudical prescriptions, Mairaonidea likewise affirms that three things are necessary, טבילה, מילה and קרבן, it being expressly stated that the two last are binding upon women. See the passage in Seiden, De Synedriis, book i. chap. iii. (vol. i. pp. 37-40 of London edition). Also in general Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. note on Matthew 3:6. Slevogt, De proselytis, chap. xi. (Ugolini, xxii. 815). Danz, Baptismus proselytorum, chap. xvi. (in Meuschen, Nov. Test. etc. p. 250). Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 43. Leyrer in Herzog’s Enc. xii. 242 sqq.
[2345] Circumcision and washing with water (baptism), Pesachim viii. 8 = Edujoth v. 2. Sacrifice, Kerithoth ii. 1.
[2346] Kerithoth ii. 1.
[2347] Lists of the literature of this subject are given by Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 46 sq. Bengel, Ueber das Alter der jüd. Proselytentaufe, pp. 1-18. Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alten der jüdischen Proselyten Taufe, pp. 4-82. Winer, Realwörtb. ii. 286 (art. “Proselyten”). Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xii. 245. De Wette, Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie, 4th ed. (1864) p. 376. Meyer’s Commentary, note on Matthew 3:6. The following works deserve special mention: Lightfoot, Horae Hebr., note on Matthew 3:6. Danz, Baptismus proselytorum Judaicus (in Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustratum, pp. 238-287). Idem, Antiquitas baptismi initiationis Israelitarum vindicata (also in Meuachen, pp. 287-305). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 46-50. Bengel, Ueber das Alter der jüd. Proselytentaufe, Tübingen 1814. Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter derjüd. Proselyten-Taufe und deren Zusammenhang mit dem Johanneischen und christlichen Ritus, Berlin 1828. Lübkert, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1885, p. 690 sqq. Winer, Realwörtb. ii. 285 sq. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xii. pp. 242-249. Delitzsch, ibid. 2nd ed. xii. pp. 297-299. Zezschwitz, System der christl. kirchl. Katechetik, i. 216 sqq. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2nd ed. 1884), pp 745 747. Of the above, Lightfoot, Danz, Bengel, Delitzsch, Zezschwitz, Edersheim are in favour of the high antiquity of the baptism of proselytes, the others are opposed to it; but none of them have influenced modern opinion on the subject so much as Schneckenburger.
[2348] Tertullian, De baptismo, chap. xv.
[2349] Pesachim viii. 8 (= Edujoth v. 2): “A mourner is at liberty to partake of the Passover lamb that very evening after he has washed, but not so with regard to other holy sacrifices.… If a Gentile should happen to be circumcised on the day previous to the Passover, then, says the school of Shammai, he is at liberty (on that same day) to wash and, in the evening, partake of the Passover lamb (טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב); but the school of Hillel says: whoever comes from being circumcised is like one who comes from a grave” (from touching a dead body). According to Gabler, the proselyte’s bath mentioned here was prescribed “because the proselyte was defiled by the act of circumcision (!), and because umong the Jews an unclean person was strictly speaking forbidden to take part in the Passover meal” (Gabler, Journal für auserlesene theologische Literatur, second part of the third vol., Nürnberg 1807, pp. 436-440). Similarly Bengel, Proselytentaufe, p. 90, note. Schneckenburger, p. 116 sqq. Winer, Real-wörth. ii. 286. Leyrer, xii. 246. If this notion of a defilement caused by circumcision were correct, then the prescription as to the bath would apply to every proselyte without distinction, no matter whether he was circumcised on the 4th of Niean or at any other time. But the truth is the bath is presupposed as a matter of course, for the simple reason that a Gentile as such was unclean; and the only point in dispute is whether an exception was made in favour of one who was circumcised on the 14th of Nisan, so as to admit of his being treated as one who was unclean only for a single day in order that he might not be disqualified for joining in the Passover feast, or whether in this instance as well the rule was enforced which required him to be treated as one who was unclean in the higher degree, and therefore for a period of seven days (“like one who comes from a grave,” according to Numbers 19). Comp. Delitzsch as above, xii. 299.
[2350] Arrian, Dissertat. Epicteti, ii. 9: Ὅταν τινα ἐπαμφοτερίζοντα εἴδωμεν, εἰώθαμεν λέγειν· οὐκ ἔστιν Ἰουδαῖος, ἀλλʼ ὑποκρίνεται. Ὅταν δʼ ἀναλάβῃ, τὸ πάθος τὸ τοῦ βεβαμμένου καὶ ᾑρημένου, τότε καὶ ἔστι τῷ ὄντι καὶ καλεῖται Ἰουδαῖος Here Arrian seeks to show that a man can claim to be a true philosopher only when his practice is in accordance with his principles. He intimates that there was something analogous to this in the case of the Jews. If a man calls himself a Jew without living as such, he is not recognised as a Jew. “But if any one adopts the mode of life required of one who has been baptized and elected (received into religious fellowship), then is he really a Jew and entitled to be called such.” The figurative sense of βεβαμμένου (initiated) is here quite as improbable as the notion that Arrian confounds Jews with Christians. Comp. especially the exhaustive treatment of the matter in Bengel, pp. 91-99. But Schneokenburger’s interpretation: “the παθος of one who must regularly bathe himself” (p. 86, and in general pp. 78-89), is precluded by the use of the perfect.
[2351] Orac. Sibyll. 4:164.
[2352] So for example Winer, Realwötb. ii. 286. Leyrer in Herzog’e Real-Enc. xii. 247. Keil, Bibl. Archäol., 2nd ed. (1875) p. 841. Besides these also Schneckenburger, pp. 176, 184 sq.
[2353] For a description of the rite as observed in post-Talmudic times, see for example Buxtorf, Lex. col. 407 sq. Slevogt, De proselytis, chap. xiii. (in Ugolini, Thes. xxii. 817 sq.). Delitzsch in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xii. 297. The most essential thing there was the presence of witnesses, which we may confidently assume would be regarded as no less necessary in pre-Talmudic times as well. And what is more, the Talmud, so far as I am aware, contains as yet no precise account of the ceremonial. It is therefore purely gratuitous to assert that the טבילה mentioned in the Talmud is different from that mentioned in the Mishua. On the other hand, it is correct to say that the baptism of John and Christian baptism are essentially different from that of the Jewish proselytes, and that because the two former were not, intended to impart Levitical purity, but merely to serve as a symbol of moral cleansing. But of course the choice of this symbol was suggested by the practice of the Jews in regard to washings.
The obligation and rights of the proselytes have been defined with great minuteness and detail by the Jewish doctors.[2354] Speaking generally it was regarded, according to orthodox Pharisaic views, as a simple matter of course that they should observe the whole law (Galatians 5:3), and so also in particular with regard to the sacred tribute.[2355] But the doctors have here taxed their ingenuity in the way of carefully laying down certain limitations, especially in regard to the terminus a quo at which the obligation comes to be in force. Only those portions of the proselyte’s earnings were liable for tribute which fell under the category of liability after his conversion.[2356] Brothers who were born previous to their mother’s conversion were not subject to the law regarding levirate marriage.[2357] Then maidens who were born before their mother’s conversion were not to be bound by the law given in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.[2358] This latter regulation may of itself serve to show how, along with the limitation of obligations, there was also at the same time a limitation of rights. Then again it was only such female proselytes as were less than three years and a day old at the time of the mother’s conversion that, with respect to numerous matrimonial rights, were on a footing of equality with native Jewish women.[2359] Further, female proselytes were on no account to be at liberty to contract marriage with priests, nor were the daughters of proselytes to be allowed to do so except in those instances in which one of the parents happened to be an Israelite by birth, in which case the privilege extended to the tenth generation.[2360] On the other hand, proselyte women might marry a person that had been emasculated or mutilated, a thing which, according to Deuteronomy 23:2, native Jwessses were debarred from doing.[2361] Then the legal enactment to the effect that, if any one through carelessness happened to strike a woman in such a way as to cause abortion he was to give compensation, did not apply to the case of proselyte women,[2362] But, on the other hand, the law with reference to the drinking of the jealousy water (Numbers 5:11 sqq.) applied to female proselytes as well.[2363]
[2354] For the passages in the Mislina, see note 292, above. A collection of material from the Talmud and Midrash is given in the tractate Gerim, to be found in the Septem libri Talmudici parvi Hierotolymitani, Frankfurt-am-Ma. 1851, and edited by Raphael Kirchheim.
[2355] Bikkurim i. 4; Shekalim i. 3, 6; Pea iv. 6; Challa iii. 6; Chullin x. 4.
[2356] Pea iv. 6; Challa iii. 6; Chullin x. 4.
[2357] Jebamoth xi. 2.
[2358] Kethuboth iv. 3.
[2359] Kethuboth i. 2, 4, iii. 1, 2.
[2360] Jebamoth vi. 5; Kiddushin iv. 7; Bikkurim i. 5.
[2361] Jebamoth viii. 2.
[2362] Baba kamma v. 4.
[2363] Edujoth v. 6.
It is precisely the care with which those restrictions have been framed that is so well calculated to show that, in regard to obligations and rights, proselytes were regarded as being in all essential respects on an equality with native Israelites. At the same time the gulf that lay between a born Gentile and a genuine descendant of Abraham could never be bridged over. A proselyte was never allowed to call the fathers of Israel “his” fathers;[2364] while, in the order of rank in the theocracy, a proselyte occupies a lower place even than a nathin.[2365] Although with characteristic humaneness the Jewish law, appealing to Exodus 22:20, forbids any one ever to be so unkind as to remind the son of a proselyte of the past ways of his fathers,[2366] still, on the whole, proselytes were never held in the same estimation as native Jews. What Rabbi Judah presupposes with respect to the proselytes in Rekem, that they must have been remiss in the observance of the law,[2367] probably represented, and that not altogether without reason, the average opinion held regarding them, and accordingly there are frequent complaints about them in the Talmud.
[2364] Bikkurim i. 4: “A proselyte offers his firstlings without repeating the confession, Deuteronomy 26:3 sqq., because he is not at liberty to say, Give us what Thou hast sworn to our fathers. But if his mother happens to be of Israel, in that case he repeats the confession. When such proselyte prays by himself he uses the words, The God of the fathers of Israel. And when he is in the synagogue he uses the words, The God of your fathers. But if his mother be of Israel he says, The God of our fathers.”
[2365] Horajoth iii. 8: “A priest (in point of rank) takes precedence of a Levite, a Levite of an Israelite, an Israelite of a bastard, a bastard of a נָתִין, a nathin of a proselyte, and a proselyte of an emancipated slave.”
[2366] Baba mezia iv. 10.
[2367] Nidda vii. 3.
According to the Deuteronomic legislation there were two nations, the Ammonites and the Moabites, that were never to be admitted into communion with Israel, no, not even in the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:4), It is said that, apropos of this enactment, the question was once debated in the time of Gamaliel II., whether an Ammonitish proselyte who might wish to join the communion of the Jews should be allowed to do so. Gamaliel decided in the negative, while R. Joshua took the affirmative view on the ground that the Ammonites had long ceased to exist, The view of R. Joshua was homologated by the learned doctors.[2368][2369]
[2368] Jadajim iv. 4.
[2369] Schürer, E. (1890). Vol. 4: A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, second division, Vol. II. (1-327). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.